newsobserver.com blogs -- opinion

Letters to the editor: Women's work and the Jesse Helms Courthouse

bwheeler — Fri, 18 May 2012 16:12:35 -0400

Here are several letters on a wide range of topics that got overrun by all of the Amendment One letters we printed.

-------------------

The claim made in the April 24 editorial cartoon by Walt Handelsman that women earn 23 percent less than men is extremely misleading. That statistic simply states the difference in the average pay for all men and women workers. Why would one expect these averages to be the same when they are not doing the same jobs?

The statistic reflects the fact that more of the lower-paying jobs are held by women, but it is not evidence of discrimination against women. Women hold many of these jobs because of choices they have made, often based on family considerations. In a survey some years back of young, unmarried professional women, it was found that their pay was extremely close to that of men with the same qualifications and in the same field.

There are many factors that bear on the differences in the jobs that men and women hold. For example, a man with limited education may be able to get a relatively high-paying job that is unavailable to most women because of the physical demands of the job. The downside of this is that many more men than women are injured, maimed or killed on the job. Pay is just one consideration in selecting a job.

Andrew S. Barclay
Cary
--------------------

Mother’s Day is a special time to celebrate mothers everywhere and their central role in ensuring the health of their families and communities. As we pay tribute, let us also recognize the challenges that threaten the health of our moms and babies nationwide.

Despite improvements over the last 40 years, our progress on reducing infant mortality has plateaued. Rates of premature births and low birth weight have risen. Many mothers and their babies are falling victim to a broken health care system that denies them access to quality, affordable maternal and infant care.

Thankfully, important provisions in the Affordable Care Act can help turn the tide. This historic law supports programs such as home-visiting, nutrition counseling for expectant mothers, and free immunizations and health screenings for children that ensure improved health outcomes and a healthy start in life. Some of these maternal and child health benefits are already in effect.

Every pregnant woman deserves access to affordable maternal health care. On Mother’s Day, and the other 364 days of the year, our appreciation for those we love must extend to guaranteeing those programs and services that are essential to improving the nations health, starting with our youngest and their mothers.

Jonathan Kotch
Durham

----------------

Gov. Beverly Perdue’s emergency landing at Raleigh-Durham Airport must have been quite a scare. Thankfully all went well but I’m not sure that I’ve shaken it off yet. The governor needed to take a state jet from Raleigh to Greensboro? On the taxpayers’ dime? It should frighten all North Carolina taxpayers that we find out about this lavish spending when landing gear gets stuck.

Ben Levitan
Raleigh

-------------------------

Mother’s Day is all about celebrating the special women in our lives who sacrifice each day to ensure we have everything we need. This Mother’s Day, I'm writing to recognize the special mothers involved with the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) program here in Wake County. They are working through adversity and socioeconomic obstacles to gain the knowledge and tools necessary to give them and their children the best chance for success.

This voluntary program pairs first-time, low-income moms with a registered nurse who conducts in-home visits with mothers from pregnancy until the child turns two. Nationally recognized, NFP is backed by three decades of research that proves the program works. NFP helps improve pregnancy outcomes, improve child health and development and increase economic self-sufficiency. Many mothers enrolled in the Wake County NFP are achieving these goals.

One mom, who recently completed the program, gained employment and has a thriving 2-year-old daughter meeting developmental milestones. The mom plans to obtain a degree in nursing, inspired by the nurse who helped her in difficult times. It's the personal stories that make this program and these mothers so special. On this Mother's Day, I want to make sure someone tells their inspiring story.

Easter Maynard

Raleigh

-----------------

With all the talk of budget cuts and financial woes within the UNC college system, it is good to hear that the powers-that-be retained music professor Mark Katz’s classes “related to DJ culture and the use of turntables as musical composition tools” (Life, etc., story, April 26).

It is also encouraging to learn that Katz was able to receive a grant to fund a turntable lab where our future leaders can learn basic DJ skills. Typically one would have to enroll in a class at a local community center to get exposure to that kind of training.

In the article, the professor stated that as far as he knows, this is one of the first classes for credit at a major university that actually teaches DJ skills. No kidding? I wonder why that is?

It is reassuring to know that proper priorities are in place at UNC and that such discernment is used in spending taxpayer and student dollars. Armed with turntable skills taught by a classically trained violinist and hip-hop aficionado, we can all take comfort in knowing that our college grads will be well-prepared for the competitive job market that awaits them.

David Prickett
Raleigh

----------------------------

Not surprisingly, shortly before the Republican primary Wake County commissioners Tony Gurley and Paul Coble raised the idea of naming the new county courthouse after the late Sen. Jesse Helms. After all, they used the county commission as their personal campaign platform for months.

Naming, something after Helms may be appropriate, but is attaching his name to $200 million of public debt that was not approved by voters the right fit? When the City of Raleigh explored building the Clarence Lightner Public Safety Center, conservatives like the Wake County Taxpayers Association, Americans for Prosperity and former Justice Bob Orr opposed it, arguing that such a large public debt should be approved by the voters first. No public vote was taken before the new courthouse was approved.

Helms was long a champion against using taxpayer dollars to buy votes. You have to wonder how he would feel about the appearance of using a $200 million public asset to do the same.

Perhaps the right fit would be the old courthouse. It already has been paid for, served the taxpayers faithfully and managed to survive decades without another politician’s name on it.

Perry Woods
Raleigh
The writer is a Democratic political consultant.

Adultery pays: Taking Tillis to task

bwheeler — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:23:50 -0400

Lots of letters today about House Speaker Thom Tillis' decision to use taxpayer money to pay two former staffers an extra month of salary after they resigned over improper intimate relationships with lobbyists. You'll see most of these in the paper, too.

-------------------

I was astounded by the news that Thom Tillis had given payouts to the people on his staff who had to be let go because of what apparently were adulterous relationships. I find it hard to believe that the man who was so instrumental in getting Amendment One passed based on biblical teachings was rewarding someone for adultery.

According to your article, Tillis defended the payment as part of the “human side” that takes into account families that were affected by the job loss. Does that mean he is now going to make some payments that take into account all the families that will be affected by Amendment One? To me this is rank hypocrisy.

Adultery is very specifically identified as a major sin by the Ten Commandments. Yet he seems to avoid this but is very ardent in his stating that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Also, all those preachers, both black and white, picked a specific statement from the Bible to justify their religious intolerance and bigotry on Amendment One. How can one activity be so wrong and one activity be rewarded?

Tom Brewster
Goldsboro

------------------------
All state employees be aware! If you want to get two extra weeks pay when you resign, you must engage in “inappropriate behavior.” Those who Speaker Thom Tillis rewarded chose this behavior But those who lost their jobs abruptly due to budget cuts were not favored with his “human side” even though some among them were also single mothers.

The families of those whose jobs were eliminated suffered many hardships through no fault of their own. My hope is that all who have lost their state jobs will remember these actions of the speaker and his associates when it is time to vote. Incidentally, when did we begin to use the United Kingdom Employment Rights Act of 1996? Apparently, when it behooves the speaker.

Georgie F. Brizendine
Raleigh

---------------------------

I was pleased to read that Speaker Thom Tillis wants to consider the “human side” when people lose their jobs (May 17 news article). I hope that means he will never again hold unemployment benefits hostage like he did last spring when over 40,000 families went without benefits for 47 days. Surely the speaker’s new concern for the jobless also means that he won’t support any cuts in unemployment benefits. It’s hard for single moms, like Tillis’ former staffer, to get by on the $350 per week maximum that business leaders are advocating.

I am also encouraged by Tillis’ interest in the labor law of the United Kingdom. North Carolina workers could benefit from protection against unfair dismissal, time off for parenting, flexible work schedules and paid time off for civic duties – all of which are guaranteed under the U.K.’s Employment Rights Act of 1996.

Since Tillis cited this law as grounds for severance pay for his staff who resigned, I am hopeful he will make it the law of the land for all North Carolinians.

MaryBe McMillan
Secretary-Treasurer, North Carolina State AFL-CIO
Raleigh

-------------------------
This is truly rich - Thom Tillis's compassion for his adulterous staffers. He worries that "serious family obligations still existed for each of them." Like what? Alimony payments? Lawyers' fees? The good speaker - that noted defender of marriage - apparently unbothered by adultery, did not seem to be at all worried about the families of gay people who will be losing health insurance due to his ugly and mean-spirited ammendment.

Indeed, he had to actually search for a Wikipedia entry on British labor law to justify his generous dispersal of my tax dollars to his staffers - one of whom he lived with. (But Tillis didn't know a thing about the affair, he claims!) Note to Mr. Tillis: British law also allows civil unions for gay couples with all the rights of marriage. Two words come to mind here: hypocrisy and thievery.

Gerald M. Daley

Raleigh

--------------------------------

Referring to your May 18 article, "House Speaker Tillis defends payments to ex-staffers": Thank you, Speaker Tillis. What you did nullifies the NC state taxes I paid last year and for the next several years to come. That was not your money to squander and I'm afraid this will cost you and your party at election time.

John Hamilton

Raleigh

-----------------------------------

Is Mr. Tillis really the right man to run our govermental affairs? First of all, he must not pay attention to miss the fact that his roommate and cheif of staff was having an out of wedlock affair with a lobbyist. And then a very simmliar tale involves policymaker Amy Hobbs. I would like to go to one of their office parties. Then he wastes 20,000 dollars of taxpayers money on 2 people that were more concerned about who they were sleeping with then goverment business. And they should have been fired. If the man was making 150,000 a year he doesn't need severance.This sounds more like a payoff. I'm a republican, but with decisions like this maybe its time for Mr. Tillis to resign. But no parting gifts.

Bill Mitchell

Raleigh

6 years later: A lecture on DNA and the Duke lacrosse case

bwheeler — Thu, 17 May 2012 17:02:50 -0400

Six years ago, local attorney Brad Bannon was part of the defense team for Dave Evans, one of three players charged in the Duke lacrosse case. Bannon spoke this week to humanities students at Broughton High School about his experiences and quite modestly downplayed his role in getting to the bottom of DNA evidence. The players were accused of brutally raping Crystal Mangum and were later declared innocent by the state Attorney General. If you'd like to read more about Bannon, there's a lengthy story about him on the blog Durham-in-Wonderland. Here, find NONVERBATIM notes of his talk at Broughton.

It began in March 2006 with a party held just off Duke’s campus with most members of the male lacrosse team during spring break. The lacrosse team historically didn’t leave town for spring break. They practiced and had an annual party. They hired a couple of exotic dancers, or that’s one term for them. Often euphemistically they are referred to as strippers. They hired them over the Internet, two women who were later found in a parking lot of a grocery store. One of the women was unresponsive and wouldn’t get out of the car. Police came and questioned the woman, who was still unresponsive. They were unable to get her to respond to anything they were saying to her.

They took her to Durham Community Access, and when checking her in, she was still unresponsive. The person at the front desk asked whether she had been sexually assaulted, and she said yes. So the focus shifted away from treating her as someone who might have been intoxicated or impaired to someone who might have been the victim of a serious, brutal crime.

They took her to UNC Hospitals. They did a rape kit, which is a physical examination of an accuser who alleges he or she has been sexually assaulted. The sooner the rape kit can be taken, the better for collecting evidence that can identify or exclude perpetrators by DNA evidence. I had never represented anyone who had been accused in a case where DNA was a prominent part of the case. I didn’t really know that much about DNA other than what you know about DNA, only you probably know more because it had been a long time since I had been in college, where I did anything I could to avoid science and math classes.

As a result of one of the Duke lacrosse captains, as a result of my boss being contacted to represent him, I ended up on the case. The level of control the prosecutor had over the case later led the State Bar to issue a complaint against him for misconducted that resulted in his disbarment. It also resulted him being held in contempt of court and being held in jail one night.

The prosecutor made extraordinary statements at the beginning of case that, to put it lightly, inflamed the community. He made several statements of how this rape did occur, he saw evidence of it, and that there was no doubt in his mind that it occurred and that it was motivated by racial bias. He made these statements very deliberately, over and over again, and he made them when the accusations were just being made public. If you lived anywhere near Chapel Hill or Durham, you know he split the community right down the middle. He exploited every division he could at the time, town and gown, race. All of those comments were fed into the hopper while charges got going, and it inflamed the passion of the community so that the true facts were locked out. The Duke case was very little about what really happened that night but what people extrapolated and brought to the table. All of that noise was going on, we as lawyers started thinking about the case we were going to have to put on. We were pretty sure we were representing innocent clients. We had to start figuring out: what do we have here and how do we work with it.

I call it DNA for dummies.

Accuser’s claim: She claimed the closest previous sexual encounter she had was a week earlier with her boyfriend. She claimed she had been beaten and raped vaginally, anally and orally. She claimed no condom was used. She claimed at least one or maybe all three had ejaculated and left semen. She also claimed she lost several false red fingernails during the assault.

Evidence collected: For the rape kit, they took oral, vaginal and anal swabs. Pubic combings. Seized her panties. Took from the house where the alleged assault occurred one unpainted fingernail from one client’s room and others from a bathroom, five painted false fingernails. Here is an actual picture of the disgusting bathroom those guys lived in.

April 10, 2006: SBI lab report:

Tests for semen, all were negative. The SBI didn’t do testing on those items for DNA because there was no semen.

Unpainted nail found in a player's room not examined.

Painted false fingernails, they typed that DNA sample. The DNA profile obtained was consistent with a mixture. Predominant DNA matched Crystal Magnum. The weaker profile was consistent with a mixture, which means there were at least two other people and maybe more. No conclusion could be reached as to whose DNA this could be. They had taken samples from all lacrosse players who had voluntarily given them to police.

May 12, 2006: DNA security report

Two players had already been charged with committing the alleged assault based on a lineup in which the police broke all the rules. They showed her pictures of only lacrosse players and said here are pictures of lacrosse players who were there that night. Show us which ones did this to you.

Because the state crime lab couldn’t tie anyone to this assault, the police went out and hired private lab. The vaginal swab from the rape kit yielded male DNA from a sole source, the accuser’s boyfriend. They actually did swab the unpainted fingernail and found DNA from a sole source, who was an unindicted player.

Painted false fingernails from bathroom trash can yielded DNA from the accuser and multiple males, and Dave Evans could not be excluded from that group, but it was in his bathroom he uses every day and everything he uses in that bathroom ends up in that trash can.

Only three items the lab tested had DNA consistent with samples. The accuser alleged that the last person she had physical contact with was a boyfriend a week earlier and that the next contact was these three players who assaulted her, with no condoms, at least one of whom had ejaculated.

When we get this report, we saw Dave Evans could not be excluded from this DNA mixture profile. They were saying with 98 percent certainty that Dave Evans’ DNA is on this evidence.

Soon after he was charged, well, we were already in court, because the previous two people had been charged and they already had a court date. We knew they would have to open the file because of discovery laws now in place in the wake of the Alan Gell case.

Mike Nifong, the district attorney of Durham County, was running for re-election at the time. He made a declaration that he handed over the entirety of the state’s case. He avowed he wasn’t aware of any more information that could be exculpatory to the defendants.

I found in the evidence a journal of police officers' activities. A detective arrived at the private lab doing private testing. Nifong was present. The two lead detectives had gone with the lead prosecutor in the case to meet with the lab director to learn about the testing in the case fairly early on. I wondered, why is the detective going there and meeting with the lab director?

On May 12, the day we received the private lab report, I see the detective has met again with the director of the private lab. Looking at other notes, from one of the detective’s handwritten notes, on April 4, she called the DNA lab director and talked directly about testing, and wrote “can possibly adjust prices because they would really like to be involved in case.”

There’s a reason a small startup lab is trying to make a name for itself and make money and be involved in this case. If they’re involved in it, and they want involvement to become known, that will only happen if they identify evidence that will make their involvement known …

June 19, 2006: We asked the judge to direct Nifong to give us notes of the meetings they had with the director of the lab. Nifong said they discussed nothing but what was in the report.

August 31, 2006: I filed a motion in which I asked for all of these technical things. I had no idea what I was asking for. I went to a magazine and found a motion someone else had put together several years earlier about DNA. I copied it, and put it in there. I asked for laboratory protocols, which are the rules they have to follow in order to conduct DNA testing and make conclusions. I asked for DNA profiles of lab workers. That way you can prove contamination in the lab. I asked for chain of custody documents. I wanted to know where it went from A to B to Z. I said give me all your data about everything, all the files you have that show DNA testing. Once again, I reiterated a request for any information that Nifong gained from the lab director in three private meetings.

Sept. 22, 2006: We went to court on that motion. I got the court to clarify that Nifong got no other statements from the lab. For good measure, I was asking for more details about DNA. He made fun of us and said we were on a witch hunt.

Oct. 12, 2006: The judge sided with us and ordered Nifong to give us all of the information related to the DNA. Mr. Nifong again indicated he did not discuss details of the case with the director.

I finally got what I asked for, but then I had to figure out what it was and why I asked for it. I had to learn about DNA. So I went on amazon.com and I ordered a book about DNA. I started reading it and learned the very basic details of DNA. DNA profiles consist of unique “alleles” or markers or peaks at 16 loci on the human chromosome. Each one of those points on the strand is a locus. The numbers that appear and each one of those peaks is an allele …

Autosomal testing reveals both male and female DNA.

Y-str testing reveals only male DNA

Reference samples from known persons yield complete profiles, whereas evidence specimens from an alleged crime scene are often partial profiles.

The SBI lab only performed autosomal testing. The private lab did autosomal and Y-str testing.

General rule: 2 peaks per person per locus (1 allele contributed by each parent)

Evidence profile: If there are more than two peaks, it’s a mixture of DNA.

If you get to the evidence profile and see more than one peak, more than one male contributed DNA to this piece of evidence.

If you have one place on a DNA strand where the percentage doesn’t match an evidence profile, you are automatically excluded.

Handwritten notes on the lab reports say “does not match.” I saw a series of numbers after that and flipped back through the private lab’s information. Those numbers matched up with all of the DNA profiles the lacrosse players submitted.

In the rape kit, the lab found more than one male – remember the report said we only found one male, her boyfriend – and it said none matched the lacrosse players. A handwritten note on the profile says “might be BM.” Remember, I had asked for the profile of lab workers. I thought, hmm, BM ... Brian Meehan? The lab director?I looked back at Meehan’s DNA profile.

I remembered on the 21st of April, the police and Nifong had gone to meet Brian Meehan, and I found it hard to believe he had found multiple male DNA in the rape kit on the 19th and failed to bring that up with Nifong. I had been asking for months for the prosecutor to tell me what happened in those meetings and he had said nothing.

They found 11 items in the rape kit that had multiple male DNA in them.

All of it excluded the Duke lacrosse players.

They found multiple items that excluded our clients. She described an assault that would have left multiple examples of DNA had it occurred.

Remember I also asked for protocol of the lab. Their own rules show they report the results for each DNA test, but I knew they didn’t do that because of the rape kit items.

I also wanted to know how they came up with the different results from the fingernails. The private lab reached the conclusion that it was 98 percent sure it was my client’s DNA on the fingernail.

I focused on one locus. They ran charts for each one of these 16 areas that isolated the DNA and then matched them up with the victim’s DNA profile, our client’s DNA profile and the evidence’s DNA profile. And you can see the peaks are similar.

But what I quickly focused on was that one set of numbers go 0, 1100, 2200. Another set go 40, 80, 120.

If you apply simple mathematic principles, these peaks would only be here because of the numbers.

In the lab's profile, they require you to be at 150 before you can call it a true allele … but they ran an evidence specimen that doesn’t even go up to 150.

The thing we really found out, that was of significant importance, was that we had a case where the prosecutor met on several occasions with the private lab director and after those meetings we found all sorts of things that needed to be turned over. We put that information into a motion and cited specifically, here’s our basis, order the DA’s office to give the full report to us or let us talk to the lab director under oath.

Dec. 15, 2006: The motion was all we want is a full report, we have DNA samples, we can read, we want a full report or we would like to be able to cross-examine the director.

Nifong said the first he heard of this particular situation, that Meehan had a report that failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, was when he saw our motion two days earlier.

Dr. Meehan was then tendered for examination.

I was and still am the youngest person on that defense team, but when Mike Nifong said here’s this lab director for examination for these things, every single person on the defense team turned and looked at me, and I said to my boss, "I’m not ready to do this" – and it was the first time all of our clients and their families had been in court together with us, all sitting there – and I had literally nothing prepared to cross this DNA expert about. My boss [Joe Cheshire] said, "we are never ever going to get this opportunity again." He said something along the lines that, "There’s a difference between lawyers and great lawyers and it’s literally in moments like that. I’ve always known you’re a great lawyer. You just need to do this."

I really felt like I was in a sports movie, when you have no idea how you’re about to do something and you have someone give you a pep talk.

I opened up the motion and asked, “Did I get it right here? Did I get it right here?” And he said, “No, you didn’t.” I said, “OK, um, um, um .... well, what didn’t I get right?“

It appeared to me that Dr. Meehan didn’t know I had reviewed all of those charts. I started turning to each one of them, and saying, “Doesn’t mean this? Doesn’t that mean that?” He conceded everything I said initially was exactly the truth. He hadn’t reported exculpatory information. He admitted the handwritten notations “Could be BM.” Is that you? He conceded it was. He said literally that a DNA profile could be lifted from a single human cell, trying to explain how his DNA could be in this evidence, trying to give a benevolent explanation for that.

The whole time he’s saying this, he’s making our entire point. If the testing is this simple and didn’t reveal any evidence of our clients’ DNA, it makes it evident the attack didn’t occur.

When it suited his purpose, he used less than the 150 level to put our client in the fingernail mixture.

He admitted it was all true and that he had talked to Nifong and the detectives about all of it. He admitted they had reached agreement to show the evidence in such a way …

[Bannon's self-set timer goes off, so he hurries through the rest before the end of class]

Dec. 18, 2006: N.C. State Bar files complaint against Nifong

Dec. 22, 2006: Rape case dismissed.

Jan. 12, 2007: Nifong recuses himself

Jan. 24, 2006: State Bar amends complaint to allege DNA misconduct

April 11, 2006: AG office dismisses remaining charges and declares the players innocent

June 16, 2006: Nifong disbarred

Aug. 21, 2006: Nifong jailed for criminal contempt for lying to Judge Osmond Smith on Sept. 22, 2006.

What I say to lawyers at this point is that DNA evidence is not the end of every case. Someone in this room who will become a lawyer or law enforcement officer, and just know that when human beings do it, it’s subject to interpretation.

As someone who didn’t have a mathematical or scientific background, I learned you can do anything you set your mind to. If you have the resolve to do it and put time and commitment to it, you can do something you never thought you could before and end up helping people in the long run.

Let’s not pretend our clients didn’t have resources and couldn’t pay for someone to sit and do this. How many people don’t have resources to get to the bottom of this? That happens, if you’ve read about what happened with the SBI lab over the past few years, with forensic scientists in general not being scientists but being on one side of the other. If you’re a scientist, the side you need to be on is science.

That’s the difference between life and death in our criminal justice system sometimes.

Amendment One: More letters in the aftermath

bwheeler — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:46:33 -0400

Here's another batch of more than 20 letters about the Amendment One vote. Some of these will appear in print on tomorrow's Editorial page.

---------------

Those who opposed the recent marriage amendment have labeled the supporters with a number of undeserved accusations. For me, this vote was simply about the definition of marriage. Nothing more. Twenty years ago if the homosexual community had agreed to accept marriage as the traditional legal union of one man and one woman and sought a different legal recognition for same-sex unions, including comparable benefits and rights, I believe the amendment option would not have been on this ballot, but this approach was never acceptable to many of the homosexual community. They have always demanded that the meaning of marriage had to be expanded to be inclusive of same-sex relationships even though the two are not and can never be the same.

Most of us who believe that marriage is one man and one woman are tired of the unrelenting assault on the traditional meaning of "marriage." We voted accordingly. I remind those who discuss this with me that the only reason we can debate the issue face to face is because both of us were the product of the sexual union of one man and one woman, even if artificial means were used for conception. That's a fact that doesn't require Biblical validation.

Glenn Messer
Wake Forest

------------------------

I read with some sadness the recent letter “Proud and loud.” Not sadness for the letter-writer but for his two children, ages 7 and 9, to whom he was passing on his views. it reminded me instantly of that poignant discourse on bias and discrimination in Rogers and Hammerstein's “South Pacific”. “You've got to be taught before it's too late, Before you are six or seven or eight, To hate all the people your relatives hate, You've got to be carefully taught...”

David Johnston
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

I used to live in Charlotte and loved the city and the state, but, now, I am truly ashamed to have any connection to North Carolina. How can people hate so much? There is a difference between "Christian" marriage and "civil" marriage. I am an older, church- going American who believes that love is where you find it and we have too little love in the world to start trying to tell anyone who they can love.
I have many gay friends/couples and those who talk about the "procreation” side of marriage must not have gay friends because the majority of mine have 2, 3 and 4 children! Some adopted children no one else would have, some in vitro – all beautiful, loving children with loving families including my daughter and my beautiful grandchildren. If it “hurts” your marriage, it must not be much of a marriage – .and with a 50 percent divorce rate, I am not sure heterosexual couples have anything to brag about. I remember when the same thing happened about interracial marriages and look where we are now . It won't be long til all of you who voted for the ban will be ashamed that you ever were so arrogant, hypocritical and judgmental. So sad.

Caroly Thompson
Metairie, LA

-----------------------------
In light of the current debate over gay marriage I have a few questions that I would like your readers to consider or answer. First, if marriage is nothing more than a recognized union of consenting, non-related adults, then on what basis is it right to legalize gay marriage but not group marriage? Can’t three or more consenting adults decide they love another as equally as two people of the same gender? Do supporters of gay marriage also support polygamy, or are they bigoted towards those who simply love two or more people?

Secondly, if some people are allegedly born gay like some are born black and therefore gays, like blacks, should be treated equally, then how is that some gay people become heterosexual, but no black person ever changes his race? Is it because being gay is not at all like being black and therefore does not deserve the same civil rights protections as something permanent, like one’s race? Is it because being gay is nothing more than sexual attraction, akin to a married man being attracted to many other women? Are we as a society supposed to sanction all sexual attractions, be they homosexual, adulterous, polygamous or bigamous?

Brent Aucoin
Wake Forest

---------------------------------------------------------

Recent passing of this amendment reminds one of economic historian Carlo Maria Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
Always and inevitably each of us underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation.

The probability that a given person is stupid is independent of any other characteristic possessed by that person.
A person is stupid if they cause damage to another person or group of people without experiencing personal gain, or even worse causing damage to themselves in the process.

Nonstupid people always underestimate the harmful potential of stupid people; they constantly forget that at any time anywhere, and in any circumstance, dealing with or associating themselves with stupid individuals invariably constitutes a costly error.

A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person there is.

R. W. Postlethwait
Durham

--------------------------
Let me preface my letter by saying, I am not trying to judge anyone. However, I do have a question for the devout Christians, i.e., Franklin Graham, Dr. Patrick Wooden and many more who had been very outspoken about same sex marriage. Christianity is based on the belief of Jesus being the son of God, so why is it convenient to forget how loving and non-judgmental Jesus was? Jesus loved EVERYONE, the tax collector, the prostitute and many other degenerates. Franklin Graham states he believes "God grieves" over President Obama's decision to support same sex marriage – would Jesus "grieve”? Since Graham seems to know what God thinks maybe he knows what Jesus thinks too. My favorite quote Is from Rev. Murdoch Smith, "I am always suspect when someone says they know the mind of God."

Layne Thomas
Cary
---------------------

To the letter-writer in The People's Forum of "Proud and loud" concerning the Amendment One vote and how it isn't discrimination, the majority has spoken, I offer this quote: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.” Thomas Jefferson

Michael L. Monk
Raleigh

-------------------------
I first like to say that I am a happily married man of almost 20 years and I voted against the Amendment that passed in North Carolina. I just wanted to know who all those voters are who have the nerve to worry about who can marry whom. This great country of ours was built on the rights of the people. When you start taking the rights away, then that is not what I call FREEDOM. I have always believed that there is a superior being that has the power and wisdom to be the only judge that I have to go in front of when my time comes. If gay people want to get married and it is not hurting anybody in my family, why try to stop them. Who really cares what goes on behind closed doors of a couple whether they are straight or gay. Why should all those people who voted for the Amendment care. Why didn't they worry about, say, important stuff, like the economy, school for the children, health care for everybody and the big one, JOBS for those that are not working.

I think that voting for the amendment was a mistake and will hurt more that just the gay couples who want to get married and have the same rights as everyone else. Who are we going to go after next, fat people, ugly people or people who don't think like you? This country is all about freedom, but to take rights away from good hard working citizens just because they want to get married to the same sex, that is so wrong. Wake up America, this is the 21st century and not the 17th century.

Tom Herbert
Knightdale

---------------------------
I have never been so appalled as to see what The N&O had on the very front page on May 10. To think the leader of our country stated on the morning of May 9 that he believes in the marriage of one man and one woman and by the end of the day had changed his mind and stated that he believes in gay marriages. It's amazing that the leader of our country cannot state what he believes and stick to it. Our country is truly headed toward disaster in many ways. Wish The N&O could print something heartwarming for its readers to see the very first thing when they awake in the a.m.

Brenda Cotten
Garner
----------------------------

Honest, hard-working Carolinians have gone out and voted from their hearts. Now the whiners are crying the blues. I am tired of the liberals in this state and country whining about what most of the common, honest working Americans want to see for their state and country. It's not the religious right that cries for what's right, even nature herself cries for justice. Homosexuals are not a race, nor a religion, they maybe are mentally disturbed or lack a gene that makes most of us normal humans want to live at peace and harmony within nature’s plan. If we Carolinians bow to this it will not be long and we will bow to allowing our great nation to become apart of the World system.

DeWayne Gamble
Jacksonville

---------------------------------------------------------

I am ashamed but sadly not surprised by the passage of the "Hate Gays and Lesbians" amendment. I call it this because it in no way protects marriage from anything. It does make a statement that 60 percent of our state regards gays and lesbians as something less than full citizens. I am ashamed of our religious leaders who spearheaded this effort. Prior to this I had a lot of respect for Franklin Graham and his father, Billy Graham, but that respect is now gone. To invoke the name of God to approve a state amendment violates the sacred separation of church and state that ensures our freedoms.

I know that many of these good people have just tried to follow what they feel is God's word. My God does not hate. Many of these people do not knowingly have gay and lesbian friends. I do, and they are some of the most amazing people I have had the privileged of calling my friends. If the "60 percent" also had gay and lesbian friends perhaps they would not have voted for this monstrosity.

Tom Link
Apex

-----------------

In the aftermath of the elections that saw the approval of an amendment to the N.C. Constitution it is important to note that the total voter turnout was 34.4 percent and the Amendment passed with 61.0 percent. This means that only 20.1 percent(or 1 in 5) of North Carolina voters wanted to amend our constitution enough to go vote. The other 4 out of 5 voters either didn't care or voted No. Should we really be amending the Constitution based of the wants of 1 in 5 North Carolinians? I don't believe this action represents the true desires of a majority of North Carolina residents and the vote totals show that.

William Fenner Jr.
Elm City
---------------------------------------------------------

What happened to "separation of church and state?" If I remember my history correctly, we came over from Europe for three reasons – to look for gold, to escape the harsh rule of an autocrat and to have religious freedom. So my next question is, "What do these people want with a government that sets the rules on marriage?" Marriage should be a religious issue – period. The churches should decide who is married and who is not. If someone doesn't like the rules of one church, join another! This is not the government's business. I happen to be a Republican because

I believe in small government. The marriage amendment has nothing to do with government, and I am very disappointed in the Republican Party for encouraging the government to stick their noses in yet another aspect of our lives! What a bunch of hypocrites!

Jane Shields
Rocky Mount

----------------------

Contrary to what opponents of the marriage amendment charge, there is nothing conservative, liberal or even biblical in the decision of the 61 percent North Carolinians who voted YES to the amendment. They certainly do not hate the 39 percent who voted AGAINST. Every YES voter was simply telling the other side, "I didn't come into this world by the kind of union you're advocating; and I'm sure you didn't either. By demanding marriage, you are seeking public endorsement of your purely private conduct. It is precisely that endorsement, not your private rights, that the 61 percent of us deny. Period!"

And you, dear little Jonny's same-sex parents, be sure to be smarter than a fifth grader when explaining to your wonderfully parented, inquisitive little one posing that biology question, how he came into this world by your kind of union; how, by adopting your kind of union, his own insurance-protected children will come into the world; why to his friends, he should introduce you, his parents, as "my dad and dad," or " my mom and mom" when his school buddies, including the one at whose home he had last weekend's slumber party, introduce their own parents as "my mom and dad."

Finally, wherever you, same-sex dad, introduce yourself as a "married man," never consider stupid your interlocutors wanting to know whether your "spouse" is male or female. Simply refer them to the latest edition of the gay-lesbian dictionary!

Raymond Alaribe
Raleigh

---------------

What a mean-spirited letter from a marriage amendment supporter (“Listen up,” May 10). When did voting become like a football game where we insult the losers? Civilized democracy depends on the willingness to accept results, re-join ranks and move on. But if winners rub losers’ noses in it, they look ungracious and invite retaliation. Why then would losers respect winners’ point of view?

The letter vividly reflected today’s divisive politics. Rather than look for workable solutions to our shared problems, too many now fight ideological battles to prove themselves right and to show how wrong the other side is. Clearly that’s the letter-writer’s motive.

We seem incapable of debating issues fairly, honestly and with an eye toward accepting that we will always have differences. Rather than seeing our differences as reasons to frame our debates thoughtfully, we use them to fuel insults and outrageous claims. And often we waste time, money and good will on nonproblems, such as the presumed gay threat to marriage and voter IDs.

We do this largely because those pulling the political strings can use such issues to raise uncomplicated emotional appeals to incite those who can keep them in power. And civil society be damned.

Don Clement
Greenville

------------

The N&O illustrated its story about the passage of the so-called marriage amendment with a picture of a triumphal Rev. Patrick Wooden of Raleigh. I hope this does not feed any urban legend that black voters are anti-gay or that they are responsible for the amendment’s passage.

Despite the fierce efforts of Wooden and his parishioners, a review of the Election Day returns in Wake County’s majority-black precincts indicates most black voters here voted against the amendment.

You find variants of this pattern in urban counties across the state. In Durham, the majority-black precincts voted “no” by almost 65 percent. In Mecklenburg, it was almost 53 percent. In those counties, the voters as a whole rejected the amendment by somewhat higher margins. But in Guilford and Forsyth, where voters as a whole approved the amendment, voters in black precincts rejected it by 53 percent and 55 percent.

While it’s true that rural and small-town black voters favored the amendment, they don’t seem to have done so in higher numbers than white voters there.

The Rev. William Barber of the NAACP deserves a Profile in Courage for his stand against writing discrimination into the Constitution. It is heartening to see that black voters agreed.

Bill Gilkeson
Raleigh
---------------------

Now that the marriage amendment has passed, I’d like to ask those who voted for it, as you drift off to sleep at night, snug in your bed, do you feel your marriage is more protected, safer, more secure? You do? Really? REALLY?

Evans E. Harrell, Ph.D.
Clinical psychologist
Rocky Mount

-------------------

The citizens of North Carolina should stand in awe of Thom Tillis, Skip Stam and their supporters. On one day and with one sentence they have nullified the Preamble, Sections 1, 13 and 19 of Article 1 of the Constitution of North Carolina; violated the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit provision of the U.S. Constitution; profaned the Bible and faith; and enshrined discrimination.

Congratulations on a level of leadership and political accomplishment not seen since Germany in the 1930s.

John Hinshaw
Raleigh

----------------

In his May 10 column “Whose rights will they target next?” Barry Saunders claimed that the people who voted for the marriage amendment were out to steal people’s rights and find people to “impose their morals upon.” These people were all, of course, “the conservative groups.” I find this rather interesting considering that, according to the Board of Elections, there are considerably more registered Democrats than Republicans and also a large amount of independents. There is no way that only hard-core right-wingers voted for this amendment.

Then, later in his column, Saunders quoted Martin Niemoller’s famous words of “first they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist” all the way to the end when “they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.” So we are now comparing the majority of people in the state to Nazis?

Reasonable people voted for and against this amendment. So let’s talk like reasonable people together. Stop the rude comments and hate speech on both sides.

Danielle Howard
Fuquay-Varina

-----------------

In The N&O, I read the following quote in an article about the passage of the constitutional amendment: “The involvement of the local churches across this state was absolutely the turning point,” said the Rev. Mark Harris, president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina.

I spent 13 hours at a polling place in Durham on May 8. I saw up close and personal the “Christian behavior” of several people who identified that they were voting for the marriage amendment due to their religion. Over the course of my time at the polls, I was flipped the bird, had my information sheet balled up while accompanied by remarks that can’t be printed here and was told by one person that she “sure as hell didn’t want to protect my family.”

I feel the need to clarify (due to stereotypes about people of color and LGBTQ communities) that all of these people were white.

There were a number of other incidents, but I have a 200-word limit. I think Jesus would be dismayed to be represented by such people.
Terri Phoenix
Durham

--------------

As a citizen and full-time resident of the State of North Carolina for 44 years, 36 of those in Eastern North Carolina, I am ashamed of our legislature and the 61% of the voters who voted to codify by constitutional amendment bigotry, intolerance, homophobia, the termination of civil rights and equal protection under the law of specific groups of our citizens. The justification for this amendment is based
in the religious conservatism of its proponents who are willing to impose their religious beliefs on othersin our society. This is frightening. The religious majority now has a precedent that allows them to advocate for the termination of the rights of any group that does not believe as they do.

Amendment 1 is not based on any evidence that the domestic partnership decisions made by people in our society outside of traditional marriage has any effect on the freedoms and standing of any other member of our society. In fact, this amendment removes freedoms and equal protection under the law of gay, lesbian and heterosexual people that choose to live together in domestic partnerships.

Paraphrasing the tongue-in-cheek comment of James Carville years ago who said - he too was against gay and lesbian marriage until he found out that he did not have to have one.

The role of our government in writing or amending the state constitution is not to define which citizens may or may not have rights but to protect and expand the rights of all its citizens and is the responsibility of our legislature. Equal rights under the law and civil rights should not ever be put to referendum of the citizenry. Just imagine what would have occurred in the 1950s and 60s if there was
a referendum on the question of civil rights and equal protection under the law of our black citizens. Our legislature should be ashamed of itself in abdicating its responsibilities to all its citizens.

The amendment states that the State of North Carolina will legally recognize only traditional marriage, defined as the marriage of one women and one man, and not any other domestic partnership whether contractual or not. Under this amendment local governments and governmental organizations that have been providing insurance and other benefits to their employees who are in domestic partnerships, whether gay, lesbian or heterosexual will be illegal. Imagine the thousands of people including children that will become uninsured. Imagine the legal standing of domestic partners in issues of inheritance, rights to make decisions for their partner in health care or business, if necessary not to mention child custody and domestic violence. Under the amendment they do not have the legal rights enjoyed by the “traditionally” married.

In the end this will be a job-killing amendment. Companies will lose the ability to recruit the best qualified workers because of the documented institutionally supported bigotry of the state. I expect that hundreds of workers in corporations, our schools and universities will leave for more accepting states. Companies that are being recruited to our state will give second thought to locating here in fear that some of its best employees will refuse to relocate. The 61% and our Republican-controlled legislature knows not what it has wrought.

Edward M Lieberman

Whortonsville

Amendment One: Anger in the aftermath

bwheeler — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:38:21 -0400

And the letters just keep coming. Here are more than 70 responses, from all over the country, to Tuesday's vote to amend North Carolina's constitution to define marriage. Some of these you will see in print:

Last week at a Leadership Triangle panel discussion, Patrick Wooden, shepherd of the flock at Upper Room Church of God and pictured on the front page May 9, vigorously supported the N.C. amendment. The issue, he said, is not about discrimination, as evidenced by the fact that there are no separate water fountains or bathrooms for gay people.

I would say, however, that discrimination also plays out in other ways. Has he never walked down the street, looking at each passer-by and wondering whether that person hated him or, worse yet, were about to attack or kill him? Does he not remember the name of Matthew Shepard and countless others? Does he not know that nearly 20 percent of hate crimes committed every year in this country are the result of sexual orientation bias?

As a man who appears to have a petrified heart, Wooden’s name fits him well.

Carol Brainard
Durham

-----------------

What a sad day for North Carolina. There was a time when amendments were rooted in humanity and dignity, like the 13th and 18th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. North Carolina law already does not allow gay marriage. So I guess North Carolina Amendment One’s purpose is to solidify that humanity and dignity are no longer a priority; instead, hatred, bigotry, fear, political gamesmanship and an uniformed public rule the day.

But take heart: We are Americans and North Carolinians. Amendment One is doomed once we decide to be rational and come to understand what being ethical really means.

Joe Beamon
Cary

------------------

Unlike the writer of the May 9 letter “Not pretty,” I and the spoken majority of North Carolinians are proud to be residents of this state. Not surprisingly, all we hear is the negative rhetoric about the amendment. The liberals would have us believe we, the majority, should be ashamed of our beliefs while they, the minority, should be validated. It should be the other way around.

I’m willing to tolerate unions other than marriage (our newly minted definition), but certainly not to reward and encourage them through benefit programs. My children, ages 7 and 9, were shocked to learn that such unions even exist – but then that’s how they were raised. They will not be taught that other forms of cohabitation are acceptable.

This is not discrimination; it is the moral opinion of the majority. Get used to it. We are silent no more.

Gordon Strout
Cary

-----------------------

Before it is finally repealed, Amendment One will go down in history as an infamous and shameful act of bigotry and cruelty. As a kid, raised Christian and growing up in Alabama in the 1950s and 1960s, I could not understand how other people (white people, many of whom professed to be devout Christians) could pass and enforce laws denying basic human dignity to black people because they were, “different,” “immoral,” “threatening to our way of life,” etc.

I assumed when I moved to more enlightened North Carolina as a young adult that that I was casting my lot with a state that was kinder and more open-minded. It is very sad to know that I was wrong. It is also sad to know that, once again, misguided religious dogma is a main cause of it.

Walter Bennett
Chapel Hill

---------------------

Estimates suggest the cost of bringing the almighty amendment to a vote exceeded $100 million when considering all of the advertising, legal, logistical and other expense associated with the cause. This sum will certainly grow as the appeal effort cranks up in full force this week.

Our state faces numerous problems that will negatively affect the lives of the next generation, such as high unemployment, an underfunded state university system and ever-growing childhood obesity rates.

While some are disappointed that the amendment passed, I am disappointed that we, as a state, decided this was an efficient use of time and money. We created a public lightening rod out of something that is a private matter, and in doing so, wasted yet another opportunity to address the problems that affect us most.

Joseph Cannon
Raleigh

--------------------

Although many of us found ourselves profoundly disappointed in our neighbors on a night that North Carolina chose again to write fear and hate into the pact guiding our state, I hope we will struggle onward with unwavering faith in democracy. Our most cherished value must be the freedom to make our own choices – even, as happened tonight, to turn our backs on God, and love, and justice.

Josh McIntyre
Raleigh

--------------------

I was appalled and grievously disheartened by the picture on the May 9 front page. Twenty-nine years and two weeks ago, we were burned out of our house by KKK types because we fought for African-American children to have access to an equal and effective education. One of the threatening letters we received said we were getting too familiar with “nigars” and if we didn’t stop “something will burn.” It did.

And now I see Rev. Patrick Wooden shake his fist in the air in a victory salute because North Carolina can now legally oppress a minority that does nobody harm.

How can this be, still, today?

I am a child of Croatian immigrants who had only third- and fourth-grade educations, and when I was in elementary school, I was taunted with sing-song epithets about being a “hunky” and a “wop” so I know the pain of discrimination and would never, ever inflict it on anyone else.

How can African-Americans not feel, not know the harm done to another when subjected to this pain of social separation?

The Constitution of the United States guarantees equality of all citizens without exception. That is without exception. Now ours does not. I believe humanity has just suffered another defeat. Jesus must weep.

Dr. Bill Palich
Louisburg

-----------------

The picture of Dr. Patrick Wooden Sr. May 9 made me wince. It looked as though he were celebrating (gloating, even) that hate and discrimination were to now be written into the N.C. constitution with the passing of Amendment One.

It is said that God created human beings in His own image. It is hard to believe that after the results of the vote to defend marriage May 8. I will never lose my faith in God and Jesus, and all the love, kindness and inclusion they represent, but I lost some faith in mankind after this primary season.

Tim Smith
Chapel Hill

------------------

For those who voted for the marriage amendment based upon biblical teaching, know that you may worship the Lord, but you do not carry His Light, and may God have mercy on your souls.

Nancy Hardin
Durham

----------------

For those who backed the marriage amendment, rejoice! It was so easy to be for the amendment – you were born heterosexual; you didn't have to do anything – and now it is in the state constitution that you are better than they are. You are a first-class citizen, allowed to enter into a domestic partnership through marriage. They are second-class.

So ends the great attack on the idea that “marriage is between one man and one woman.” No longer will your marriage be threatened by the state of North Carolina officially recognizing the relationship between two women holding hands, sitting in the living room of their home.

I am proposing an amendment to the amendment: Let’s not define marriage as “a union between only one man and one woman.” Let’s change it to “a lifetime union between only one man and one woman.” I'm betting that supporters of the amendment feel that divorce is less of a threat to their marriage than is a domestic partnership between those loving women.

Patrick Murphy
Durham

-----------------

Congratulations to the Christian right! Once again they ignored and even kicked sand into the face of their Lord and Savior. The life and message of Jesus Christ was love and compassion without judgment. Love God, love thy neighbor and do not judge. Oops. Too late. Your constitution now embraces fear, deceit and distrust of God's Unconditional Love.

Jesus went to the crucifixion rather than play politics. He still knows better. Christianity without love is a clanging gong.

H. L. Pierson
Atlantic Beach

---------------------

Surprise, surprise! Marriage in North Carolina will not be redefined! It will continue to be limited to any man and woman, regardless of their plans to have children, despite the fact they will probably be divorced in a few years, and with no concern for their religious beliefs.

Our gay and lesbian children will continue to live in a state that denies their equal rights to marry the person of their choice. Our same-gendered couples who have lived in committed relationships for years, many with biological or adopted children, will struggle in a society that treats them as sinners. But hey, it’s time to celebrate. Won’t God be so proud of us!

Bill Rodgers
Raleigh

-------------------

With respect to the new amendment to our state constitution, I will quote Thomas Jefferson: “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Cynthia Stammers
Raleigh
-----------------

In response to all of the opponents of the marriage amendment, including our president, God’s law, as stated in His book known as the Holy Bible, cannot be amended.

Eddie Bland
Wake Forest
----------------------

I have four children. Three are male and one is female. Three have hazel eyes, one has blue eyes. Three have brown hair, one has blonde hair. Three are straight, one is gay.

I never told my daughter that her rights are limited because she is female. I never told my son with blue eyes that his rights are limited due to the color of his eyes. I never told my son with blonde hair that his rights are limited because of the color of his hair. We teach our children that we are all created equal, that we all have rights, that there is justice.

Yet I have to tell my youngest son that when he falls in love he will not be able to get married even though his siblings are free to do so. This hurts me as a parent.
It is disturbing that we put the rights of a minority up to a majority vote. It was more disturbing to have to stand beside my son and watch the results of the vote. Tonight once again I cried with and for my son and all the children, adults and families who are hurt by this discriminatory and hateful amendment.

Jill Hinton
Raleigh

----------------

I am really wondering why all of these females were writing in to the newspaper in support of (or opposed to) the marriage amendment – my religion and my own Holy Book says that they should not do or learn such things.
Can someone please help me to write an amendment to forbid such things from occurring in the future? I would like it on the ballot this fall – then I don’t need to worry about the fact that females can read and write diminishing my ability to do so. My Holy Book clearly teaches this – it must now be enforced on all others, lest my own rights be deprived.

Jay Miller
Raleigh

--------------------

Passage of Amendment One is the victory of the self-righteous by means of the tyranny of the majority. No change of a government’s constitution should ever be by a simple majority.

John Purifoy
Belhaven

-----------------------

In celebrating the passage of the marriage amendment Tuesday night, Tami Fitzgerald, the Vote for Marriage chairwoman, stated that “marriage was not invented by government. Our creator established it as the union of a man and a woman in an exclusive lifelong covenant.” Perhaps she should ask Newt Gingrich, state House Speaker Tom Tillis’ former chief of staff and a certain female lobbyist what their idea of an “exclusive lifelong covenant” would be. And since, as she says, marriage was not invented by government, then why should any government care or decide who marries whom?

Leon Barber
Raleigh

-------------------

Even though I voted for passage of the marriage amendment, I am not actually celebrating a victory. When supporting a candidate or voting pro or con on any other referendum, the outcome is a reflection of the electorate as a whole, and history ultimately shows the wisdom or foolishness of the decision.
With the marriage amendment, the choice voters made was either for or against Almighty God. The line in the sand separating the two factions on this issue now has all the potential of becoming a chasm. Why does this disturb me? As a Christian, I believe all fall short of God’s glory but can be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. All of us deserve his wrath but can be saved if we line up on his side. That is why I implore folks who openly reject God’s word to cross over before that hole gets too deep.

And one final thing: I detest the actions of any who would mirror an end-zone dance in thinking they have stuck it to the other side. We are instructed in Scripture to always give a reason for the hope that is within us with gentleness and meekness.

Robert Endersby
Raleigh

--------------------

I can almost hear the hallelujahs ringing out this Sunday in the churches throughout the state proclaiming “victory” in the fight to amend our constitution and enshrine in it discrimination against gays. And these people will call themselves good Christians and proclaim the glory of God. And a lot of them will be African-Americans celebrating successfully discriminating against another group of people. And it makes me sick.

At least we can take some small comfort in knowing that the majority of people in Wake, Durham, and Orange counties showed more compassion and adhered to that other passage from the Bible the proponents of the amendment ignored, “Love thy Neighbor.”

Dave Greune
Raleigh

-------------------

When, in the history of the world, has granting a minority their rights ever taken away rights from anyone else? The recent vote to pass this hateful, discriminatory marriage amendment is a shameful blot on North Carolina’s history – right up there with not allowing white people to marry black people (which was also part of the state constitution). But I’m proud to say that I know a lot of people who were willing to stand on the side of love and will fight to repeal this amendment. We won’t stop until all U.S. citizens are granted their rights and nothing less. A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle.

Jenn Hensley
Raleigh

------------------

It is unfortunate that the politics of intolerance prevailed to pass the marriage amendment. As North Carolina’s communities have become more diverse, its citizens have become more intolerant. Yet diversity among people leads to diversity of ideas, and at its nexus innovation is born, new products are developed, and high-paying jobs are created.

Diversity, in all its forms, has made America great. It has enabled the United States to out-invent other countries. To keep that edge, we need a culture of tolerance, strong public education, affordable colleges and state-of-the-art infrastructure. By passing this amendment, we have informed those in civil unions they are not welcome here. For the sake of our economy, let’s hope they ignore that message and stay.

Mary McCluer
Raleigh

------------------

It finally hit me how sad I feel about the marriage amendment passing. I am sad for my gay and lesbian friends who cannot get married, who will be stripped of rights they currently possess, who now have to carry this bigotry directed specifically at them. But those friends, those people who are not legally allowed to love each other, are some of the strongest, most spiritually enlightened, most loving people I know. They will be OK.

The people I am most sad for are the people who voted for this amendment to pass. All those whose hearts are so crowded with fear, so bound by bigotry, so inflamed with ignorance and arrogance that they cannot open them to all this love. They are the ones who don’t understand that love is love. Period. Love is love.

The only solution I have is to love more. When so many of us are hurting for love, we need to make more of it. So go home. Love your family as best you can, especially your children. Go to work. Open the door for someone. Smile at someone. Create love everywhere, especially where you can’t find any.

Ida Trisolini
Hillsborough

-----------------

“Charity should begin at home, but not stay there." (Phillip Brooks) When I think of charity, I think first of making allowance for differences and circumstances I have no knowledge of. Second of protecting the others dignity and ability to heal themselves and finally of what I can contribute that will help. If I apply that method to the Christian life, I protect myself against premature and unwarranted judgment and belittlement of others. At the same time I am able to offer help and hope.

Every condemnation in the Bible is balanced by God's mercy and forgiveness.

Every principle of morality with the reminder that judging belongs to God. So, I stand with those who believe that all people should have the same rights and privileges. I voted against defining marriage as being for only one man and one woman, because it cruelly denies protections and rights under the law that belong to all people

Mark Stephens
Raleigh

-----------------------

Some time ago I lived in Chapel Hill for awhile. I loved my time there; I even got married in Chapel Hill and over the years I have vacationed in the Kitty Hawk area on several occasions. I am approaching retirement age and have considered moving to N.C., but not now after N.C. rejected the concept of a longstanding American ideal – equality. I won't even be driving through N.C. until the state legislature moves into the 21st century. I wonder how many gay couples living in N.C. now will be moving out of the state to flee institutionalized homophobia? I hate to say it, but I'm ashamed for the Tar Heel state.

Jay Wilkins
Columbus, OH

-------------------------
Sixteen years ago my wife moved to North Carolina. We chose to move here because it was rated one of the best places in the country to live. This state was growing in commerce and culture. Especially with the Research Triangle Park, we thought of North Carolina as a place where higher education and culture were valued. But over the last few years it seems North Carolina voters have been deliberately trying to stop the flow of progress and turn the state into a place where no one wants to move.

First we have managed to break a model public school system by electing the puppets of a couple of rich guys to the school board. Then we voted in the protection of marriage amendment. I don't see how this amendment protects anybody's marriage. If two people of the same sex get married it has absolutely no effect on any straight couple's marriage. My wife and I have been married 21 years. I can't think of anything that would change in our relationship because of same sex marriages.

It seems to me that if folks really wanted to protect the institution, we would work harder on resolving poverty. We'd look at divorce and see what could be done to bring down its instance. These things hurt marriage and families much more than any imagined threat from gays. So, I'd like to thank all the folks who used their religious beliefs to justify their prejudice and intolerance. Maybe it's time for North Carolina to stop growing and show the rest of the country that this place is best for backwater hicks.

Greg Puertolas
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------
For the first time since moving here in 1999, I am ashamed to call myself a North Carolinian. The passage of Amendment One is nothing more than legislative bigotry that helps no one and harms many. I sincerely hope that it will soon be repealed by a more compassionate and forward-thinking generation.

Donald Vaughan
Raleigh

----------------------
In a recent post at my blog Oldmanonthestreet.com I offered the following challenge to Thom Tillis. Go to Fort Bragg and tell a gay soldier coming back from an Afghan deployment, sorry buddy, you are gay so despite the fact that you have risked your life for your country for a long time you are, in the eyes of the State of North Carolina, less than a full citizen. You are not eligible to enjoy the same privileges as people who are straight. I think this challenge should be extended to Billy Graham and his family, the Catholic Bishops and the whole Republican Party.

Robert Pickard
Raleigh

---------------------------
Congratulations, North Carolina! By passing Amendment One, you have succeeded in taking a giant step back into eighteenth-century religious intolerance and ignorance. With puritanical diligence, you have managed to ignore one hundred years of Biblical scholarship in order to enshrine your prejudices and bigotry. Your grandchildren will be proud of the close-minded legacy you have left for them to deal with. Or not.

Donald N. Wood
Durham

---------------

Way to go North Carolina ... way to turn back the clock! I will never spend another dime in your state, nor will my friends. This makes me sick! It's not just civil unions/ gay marriage. It's loss of prescription drug coverage, health care for children of domestic partners, etc., etc., etc. Just what are you trying to prove with this? Hateful bigotry at its finest!

Judy Letoile
Putnam, CT

-----------------------
Tuesday’s vote to amend the North Carolina state constitution to bar same gender unions was shocking in its cruelty to gay teenagers and young couples. Voters have chosen to tell these young citizens that they are in a separate class and their relationships are unworthy of recognition. As a pediatrician, parent of a gay son and daughter, and grandmother of a very lucky little boy who has two terrific dads, I want young people in North Carolina to know that many folks around the country will accept and celebrate their unions. Our understanding of family is built around love and mutual support, not exclusion or disapproval. Lack of acceptance can have disastrous results, including increased risk of suicide, fear of threats at school, and substance use in gay teenagers who experience family rejection. I hope that adults in North Carolina communities will form safety nets around gay and lesbian young people to reassure them that the sentiments reflected in this vote are not universal.

Carole E. Allen, M.D.
Arlington, MA

-------------------

Forgive them, for they know not what they do. Fear trumps courage. The people have spoken. No gay marriage in North Carolina. Many people are afraid of change. They are indoctrinated with old beliefs and manipulated into thinking that allowing a loving couple of the same sex to marry somehow threatens them. They do not know how much harm, pain and suffering this amendment will cause to those who are truly innocent. The supporters of this amendment may not be hateful nor bigoted but perhaps ignorant and misguided. Please forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Tom Cameron
Cary

--------------------------
The citizens of N.C. should stand in awe of Thom Tillis, Skip Stam and their supporters. On one day and with one sentence they have nullified the Preamble, Sections 1, 13 and 19 of Article 1 of the constitution of North Carolina, violated the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment and the full faith and credit provision of the U.S. Constitution, profaned the Bible and faith, and enshrined discrimination. Congratulations on a level of leadership and political accomplishment not seen since Germany in the 1930s.

John Hinshaw
Raleigh

----------------------

The American Psychological Association has affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity. And the American Psychiatric Association has affirmed that attempts to change homosexual behavior are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.

Yet our state will deny committed same-sex couples, and their families, rights currently afforded to them under a civil, not religious, union? Religious interpretation has, regrettably, all too often been used to relegate individuals to second-class citizenship. The husband shall rule over the woman (Genesis 2). As God placed the races on different continents it is proof that He never intended for them to mix (in defense of miscegenation law, Lovings criminal trial). And homosexuality is abomination (Leviticus). Protect marriage? It is high time that we protect one of our most cherished founding liberties, our First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Art Kamm
Apex

----------------------------

OK, all right. Now that we have removed many of the constitutional rights of a large minority, it's time to move to the next step to protect The South: We must protect us heterosexual citizens from the risk of being exposed to THEM in public toilets. Let's reactivate all those "Colored" toilets from the 19th and early 20th Century and hang signs on the that say "Queer Only". Maybe we should list some of the groups that are suspicious just to be even more on the safe side, such as male dancers, female athletes, neat dressers and opera singers, not to mention male teachers and Catholic priests. Gee, the more we think about who to suspect, the longer the list gets. Maybe THEY should get the regular toilets and those few of us who are probably straight can go to the segregated (oops!) ones. Then we can work on the issue of who gets to go to which schools. After all, we don't want our kids exposed to the fearful contagion of gayness.

Ed Nicholson
Cary

-------------------------
How ironic! Your front page photo (May 9, 2012) shows a pastor celebrating passage, by popular vote, of the marriage amendment that forbids same-sex marriage. What if the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, were put to a popular vote in 1865? What if the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves, was put to a popular vote in 1868? What if the 15th Amendment, which protected the right of U.S. citizens to vote, were put to a popular vote in 1870? And much closer to home, what if the Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory voting practices, especially against African-Americans, were put to a popular vote in 1965? Would the pastor be celebrating today? Popular vote often fails to protect minority rights, and it takes courageous political leaders to challenge the majority view.

Coby Schal
Cary
-------------------------------------------------------

Now that we as North Carolinians have decided to base laws on The Bible, here are more amendments that we should add: We should fire all female teachers and make the State only hire male teachers. “But I suffer not to permit a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (1 Timothy 2:12) We should ban women braiding their hair and wearing jewelry. “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.” (1 Timothy 2:10) We should redistribute all possessions of wealthy people to poor ones: “He answereth and saith unto them, he that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” (Luke 3:11) Finally, we should ban all prayer in public. “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say to you, They have their reward.” (Matthew 6:5)

Finley Snipes III
Wilson
----------------------------------------------------
For those who voted for Amendment One thinking that they were following the Bible: May it be done unto you as you have done unto others and may you reap what you have sown. Amendment One is opposed to everything America stands for – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is against everything Christ stood for. Christ never spoke against homosexuality and said that the only commandment is love. The only sex act he said was a sin is adultery. I am ashamed to live in such a hate-filled spiritually backward state. Thank goodness at least the Triangle area has opposed this heinous law. Let's vote in more Democrats so that we can get rid of our right wing extremist Supreme Court justices and then get this law declared unconstitutional, which it is.

Kathleen Wright
Durham
---------------------------------------------------------

Now that Amendment One has been voted on and passed, no matter what happens down the road, one thing is clear – the Amendment One opponents are sore losers! From what I've read online and in the newspapers, all those who voted for Amendment One are bigots, sellouts, weak and disappointments to the state! That's funny because most supporters of Amendment One feel the same way about you opponents. The only difference is, they don't insult people to get their points across! You lost, suck it up, and move on. That's why it's called voting, you can't always get the results your wanted – 61 percent of the state has spoken, deal with it!

Stephen Lynn
Willow Spring

---------------------------------------------------------

The irony of a photo showing a black minister who is celebrating the fact that discrimination against some members of our society has become part of the constitution was not lost on me. I was pondering all day long about the implications of the vote on me. On the surface, I am not impacted. Yet, my own freedom seems strangely diminished by my knowledge that I cannot share it with everybody else.

Karin Singleton
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Re our new constitutional amendment: what's next – pink triangles on the clothing of all gay people in North Carolina? (Reference Nazi Germany)

Edith Romaine
New Bern

---------------------------------------------------------

My wife (a woman) and I (a man) have been married for over 59 years. We have spent 25 of those years in North Carolina. The efforts of the homophobes and religious radicals, among the legislature and the voting populace, has now made us ashamed of admitting that we live in this state. Apparently, the legislature was worried that some future legislature would overturn the marriage law, so they decided to cement it into the constitution.

Perhaps they would now like to pass a law like this 1715 Maryland adultery law: 234 Maryland Assembly Proceedings, April 26-June 3, 1715 (in part)
“And in Case the said Offenders or any of them shall not have wherewith to pay the Sevll fines by this Act Imposed then the said Offenders shall be Adjudged to suffer Corporal punishment by whipping upon his or their bare bodies 'till the blood Doe appear so many Stripes not Exceeding thirty nine”

Albert Cinquepalma
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday morning after the election, I, my son, and many others participated in a news conference held on behalf of a group of people of faith that opposed the amendment that would bar the state from recognizing gay marriage. In the question period, a reporter asked a critical question: Are the people behind you members of the LGBT community? he asked. Most of us chuckled. I suspect the question really was whether we were all gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. The answer to that question is no; there were many heterosexual people of faith present, including me.

But if the question was in fact whether we are all part of the LGBT community, the answer was an emphatic yes. We are all part of the LGBT community because were all part of the same community, no matter the label. We seek to encourage one another, to support one another, and to help one another become better mothers, fathers, partners, neighbors, citizens, and people of faith. That’s what community is about. Forty percent of North Carolina on Tuesday signaled the same sentiment.

The real question we ought to be asking is what sentiment the 60 percent were trying to signal.

Mark Nance
Raleigh

-------------------------

I grew up in Alabama in the 1980's and 90's. I witnessed overt, covert and legislative prejudice, some of which I didn't fully comprehend until I was an adult.

As a Caucasian, I can only imagine what I didn't see. After moving to Chicago at the age of 24, I began to see just what I had left behind. Because here was a place where people of all races, sexes, religious belief and orientations lived with the idea that we are all equal and should have the same rights, regardless of our differences.

It was wonderful to see people living without fear of prejudicial recriminations, sometimes based on nothing more than an outward appearance. Your character was what you were measured on, not a label that was affixed to you. This was not behavior I saw where I grew up. It made me feel ashamed of Alabama.

Six years ago, I was unsure about returning to the South, but North Carolina won me over with her charm, tolerance, culture and diversity. I never thought the day would come when I would have a reason to be ashamed of her. The North Carolina that bravely broke away from the tyranny of George III would be ashamed, too. North Carolina has taken one giant leap backward for all mankind, and the passage of the Marriage Amendment is a pox on all our houses.

Stephanie Owens
Raleigh

-----------------

Esse Quam Videri.
It means "to be rather to seem." It is the state motto of North Carolina. Well technically, North Carolina both in appearance and practice, is a theocracy or theocratic state. In other words, it is what it seems to be.

Michael L. Monk
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

A couple of things in the your May 9 edition in the aftermath of the passage of Amendment One struck me as odd.

The first was the front page picture of Dr. Patrick Wooden cheering the passage of an amendment joining N.C. with other southern states in which several decades ago he would not have been allowed to vote. Someone one stood up for his rights. When he had a chance to stand up for another minority, he sat down.

The other was a quote by Tami Fitzgerald, the Vote for Marriage chairwomen, in which she said "marriage was not invented by government." I agree, that is why government should stay out of defining marriage.

Once again Paul Stam, Phil Berger, and Thom Tillis have chosen to inflame their base to disguise their lack of leadership in solving the problems of our State.

Ron Hamrick
Pittsboro

--------------------------
I am disappointed with the passage of Amendment One and the enforcement of one particular religion’s views over the entire population – the Taliban would be so proud. I would, however, like to look at the bright side. All the African-Americans who voted for the amendment can now better empathize with the bigots who voted against equal rights for blacks back in the 1960s; it seems the content of your character is actually quite similar.

Zachary Arcaro
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

The Baptist Church I attended as a child in rural eastern North Carolina (I have 13 years of perfect attendance pins to prove our family's fervent support) bears no resemblance to the Baptist Church of today. Sermons in my "old" church were mainly based on Jesus' teachings of love, forgiveness, tolerance. We left each Sunday with the instructions from our minister to go into the world and be kind and loving to everyone we met. The pulpit was not used as a place of preaching of intolerance, hate, and bigotry.

Baptist Church members may find themselves celebrating in the pews this Sunday, but I wonder how many of the people there can honestly say that they feel good about casting a Yes vote on May 8th?

Melanie Brinson-McDonald
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The photo on Wednesday's front page, showing Dr. Patrick Wooden celebrating, could well be one of a civil-rights victory celebration, but it isn't. After the long struggle for civil rights it certainly is incongruous for Dr. Wooden to, instead, be celebrating the passage of the marriage amendment. The photo's not-so-subtle message is that discrimination is fine – as long as others are the ones being discriminated against. How sad that is.

Thomas McKee
Cary

--------------------

Well it did happen. We, the people on North Carolina, have allowed a group to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Injecting their religious beliefs into our state constitution. Now I wonder how long it will be before they decide what else some of us are doing that offends their religious doctrine and has to be banned by law.

Gene Presson
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Now that we've banned the LGBT community from getting married in North Carolina, why stop there? Let's ban left-handed people, too. After all, God made people right-handed, and left-handed people place an undue burden on the fabric of society. Also, just like gay people going straight, left-handed people can be trained to be right-handed, especially if we start early enough. Look at Dory Previn. Maybe we can get another amendment on the November ballot. And after that: curly-haired people. They always bothered me, too.

Glenn Mehrbach
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

North Carolina has now joined my home state of Virginia in bigotry. To paraphrase George Orwell, apparently, some people are more equal than others. The irony, however, is that the very enactment of this amendment is a sign of weakness. North Carolina, Virginia and the other states will ultimately re-amend their constitutions to remove these blotches.

I criticize two specific groups who backed Amendment One.

First, the African American pastors, who more than anyone should understand what it is like to seek equal rights. A lot of gay blood was spilt for the cause of civil rights for African Americans, and these pastors should now hang their heads in shame.

I also criticize Billy Graham and the members of his family who urged North Carolinians to vote for prejudice and unequal rights. This family may shine up a bit better than other televangelists, but they have no true understanding of Christianity's message of love, tolerance, and charity. Indeed, Billy Graham himself demonstrated his innate bigotry many years ago when he failed to reprove President Nixon for his overtly racist comments about Jews, all taped and recorded for history. This family is one that I would shun.

Robert Adams
Richmond

-------------------------

I was not shocked but saddened by the results of the election to reaffirm discrimination against a minority of North Carolinians on Tuesday May 8th.
My chagrin was increased to see a fellow black man with his fist raised, seemingly gleeful that someone else’s civil rights had been denied.

That picture reminded me of black people celebrating another gross miscarriage of justice: the acquittal of O.J. Simpson.

Perhaps they are right about their reasoning, based on a book written by men about a Deity whose existence is purely a matter of faith.

Maybe I will burn in Hell for wanting hard-working honest people to have the same rights as other citizens, but if that’s true I have a hard time reconciling this hateful rhetoric with a loving, caring God.

One wonders if “sanctified” black people would also resort to water hoses and vicious dogs to break up a homosexual wedding?

Maloey E. Jones
Wake Forest

---------------------------------------------------------

The writers of the amendment have been successful in playing to the fears of the citizens of North Carolina. So, while they still have the momentum, let’s dust off and rewrite amendments, from the past, that will restrict people of certain religious beliefs or skin color from interfaith or interracial marriages, or even being able to vote. After all, if individuals are able to use the power of political office to restrict the "rights" of certain citizens then why stop when there are other citizens who need to have their "rights" restricted? Are we heading to the day when certain folks will have to sew an emblem on their clothes identifying who they are? Walt Kelly's Pogo said it best, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Leon DeBaer
Knightdale

------------------------

To all of us who are sad because ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hatred will become constitutional discrimination: Don't lose hold on what is real in our lives. We know who we are. We know that our loves and our families will survive this additional and temporary rejection. Be especially attentive to your partners and your children, and then keep moving forward. Let others wallow in sanctimonious self-righteousness. We are not defeated. And to those straight couples and single parents who will now feel the cold steel traps of being locked out: welcome to our world.

Steve Ferebee
Rocky Mount

----------------------

In the aftermath of the amendment vote one of the saddest elements has been the support of, even the existence of black Christians. Here is a religion whose texts are riddled with racism, which has been used to justify the most horrific racial abuse and which has, historically, been destructive of black culture and black life itself. This is a poignant example of "Stockholm Syndrome," or a manifestation of the perverse situation where an abused child clings to the abusive parent. In a more socio-political sense, the black refusal to recognize the equivalence of racism and homophobia is part of the battle to claim the mantle of "biggest victim" – a position of enormous power – which we can also see in the conflicts between black and Jewish people and even between Israelis and Palestinians.

It is always the way of power to divide and conquer. What better means of doing so than to have the oppressed use the weapons of the oppressor against themselves.

Martin Eagle, Ph.D.
Durham

---------------

In reference to your May 8 front page: I find it ironic that you chose a photo of an African American couple celebrating the passage of Amendment One. For decades the back of the bus has been a place of equality. Now in North Carolina, seating reservations have been made for homosexuals. Shameful.

Rachel A. Anderson
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

Viewing the photos of the "winners" in Amendment One, I can only think "discrimination is OK if it's not against me." Hitler's Germany started slowly discriminating against Jews because they were a distinct group and from there the process grew to its eventual culmination in the tragedy of the Holocaust. The process took 12 years, from 1933 to 1945. Perhaps equating the two seems total stretch, but then again maybe not, it certainly appears like N.C. has gotten a good start. So let's ask the Republicans, who is next on the list? You or someone you love? Oh, and by the way, the economy is still struggling and we are still at war, in case you've been distracted.

Kevin Nesbitt
Apex

---------------------------------------------------------

As a native of Raleigh, I've always thought of my home state as a little more progressive than the rest of the South. It is a sad day when a majority of voters writes bigotry into our state's constitution. The civil rights of a minority should not be open to a popular vote. I'm a little less proud to be a North Carolinian this morning.

Gale Kerbaugh
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

As the dust settles on the Amendment One vote, primary voters are likely either pleased with what they see as support for their religious beliefs and the institution of marriage, or disappointed with what they interpret as the passage of an amendment inspired by intolerance. As a young voter, I am disappointed in the results, but I am left with a profound belief that North Carolina’s best days are ahead.

In the lead-up to vote, I saw peers of mine who generally paid little notice to politics speak out and actively seek to change hearts and minds. I saw young adults from divergent political and religious beliefs rally around the idea that North Carolina's constitution should not be used to deny rights to a subset of North Carolinians. Young people may not have shown up to vote in large numbers, but it is the young adults who get involved that will lead this state in the years to come.

The pragmatism, compassion and civility these young leaders have shown during this fight make me extremely optimistic about North Carolina’s future.

S.J. Hightower
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

Last Sunday The N&O featured a full-page ad by the Rev. Billy Graham, a self-styled man of God. The sight of it brought back some nauseating personal memories of his 1954 crusade in Scotland when, even at the age of 15, my flesh crept as I listened to his Bible-thumping, guilt-mongering diatribe and its subtle promotion of the USA as God's latest chosen race.

It gave me great pleasure to vote against the amendment, both to support my many friends in loving relationships, and also to support those who, like myself, resent the concerted efforts of Graham and his ilk to turn this great country into a theocracy.

Alexander Anderson
Carrboro

---------------------------------------------------------

Congratulations, fellow Christians, on a battle well-won! Now that Amendment One is a reality, we can admit that it was never about protecting the family, but about proclaiming our moral superiority over the blight on society that homosexuality represents. Perhaps the greatest benefit of this legislation is that gays will now know that the Christian church is intolerant and stop seeking a salvation that can never be theirs. And for those churches that didn't have the courage to blatantly tell members how to vote (under some silly misconception that our constitution also provides for the separation of church and state) please share in our victory. Because of your silence, the only voice of Christianity heard by gays was ours.

Having proclaimed that gays have no legal protection under our constitution, we must enact further legislation denying them the right to vote. Let's insure the lasting effect of our efforts by proclaiming that anyone who is unmarried by the age of 25 be deemed homosexual and denied the right to vote. Without a voting lobby for the homosexual agenda, we can complete our mission and execute them, as required by Leviticus. Amendment One represents only the tip of an iceberg of what we can do in the name of God.

Jeffrey Whicker
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

It is now time for us to revise our automobile license tags. If we are going to be honest as citizens they should now read, "First in Bigotry"

Allen Murray
Durham

----------------------

As an American and a free thinker, I would like to apologize to many of the citizens of North Carolina for the vote on this incredibly biased and vindictive marriage amendment. We are now all blighted with the fact that we live in a state that honors discrimination and bigotry in an amendment to our state constitution. It is embarrassing and disgraceful. I will do everything thing in my power to overturn this, day after day, week after week and month after month.

With a mere 37 percent voter turn-out, those who did not vote are all guilty of not exercising your rights. So, shame on all of you who were too lazy to get out and vote against this abomination to our freedom. If you are too stupid to understand the consequences of this, then I suggest you read your Constitution and focus on the separation of church and state. You have just capitulated your right to live as you choose, and allowed a state-sanctioned religion to overrule your right to a separation of state and church.

Paul M. Kauffmann
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment One passed, which was no surprise given the current political climate in this state. What was a surprise was that my mother called her gay son on the eve of the election to elicit his support FOR the Amendment because, according to her, it's what the Bible says you are supposed to do. She managed to do this in spite of the fact that she has welcomed me and my partner of 26 years into her home. Somehow, I think she must have forgotten the Bible passage stating, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Sadly, Amendment One and its supporters, including my mother, promote homophobia, which destroys lives and families.

Mark Waters
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

In two weeks my family and I will move out of North Carolina. Arrived here 30 years ago, only to discover what a progressive state it has always been. The first state-supported university system; the first state-supported School of the Arts; the first state-supported School of Math and Science; the first state to allow statewide branch banking which enabled so much financial power to originate here; the vision and leadership that resulted in the Research Triangle and attracted thousands of high tech jobs, high paying jobs.

During those 30 years I injected over $4.5 million into the state economy in personal spending and income, property and sales taxes. Helped run a company that provided 150 above-average paying jobs, grossing over $100 million a year in sales. And, I invested thousands of volunteer hours helping non-profit organizations. No more.

After May 8 my family is officially classified as second-class in North Carolina, as codified by the majority using the state constitution. It follows that my money is also second-class and I will never again spend a dime in this state if I can avoid it.

So, to the majority of North Carolina who voted me second-class on May 8, congratulations. Go to church on Sunday and exult in the fact that you ran another one of them out of the state. Go to church on Sunday and exult in the fact that you helped Art Pope and his Republican preening hate-mongers in the legislature further their goal to take North Carolina to the bottom of the heap in religion-infused hatred, moral hypocrisy and the celebration of fear and ignorance, right alongside the states they so want to model North Carolina after – South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi.

Probably fair to say good riddance on both sides.

Richard Myracle
Wilmington

Amendment One: An avalanche of letters

bwheeler — Mon, 07 May 2012 12:36:01 -0400

One more batch of Amendment One letters. The election is tomorrow. Here are nearly 50 more.

There is a law already. This is a "we'll show you" message for people the legislature wants to punish. Like the message to the "liberals" in the colleges "we will gut your colleges." Like the midnight "we'll show you" message to the teachers. Like the message to preschool education, museums and high schools for the gifted. "We will show you." "We don't want you and your kind."

These are extremist politicians who don't legislate but focus on "getting even.” We are falling into the backwater hole of the 1950s. This is not where North Carolina was going.

We got off our duffs to remove the extremists from the Wake County school board.

Get in the car again. It is not over. Let us send our own message, a message from the voters - no more extremist, "we'll get you" government.

Thomas Kline
Raleigh

---------------

We always need to be sure that our good is never spoken evil of. I wish I could vote for a simple amendment that protected marriage as between one man and one woman PERIOD! Yet you have made your bill anti-homosexual altogether. I believe homosexuality is unnatural affection and sin in the eyes of God, but I love homosexuals the same as persons who gossip or have anger issues, etc. Sin is sin and we are all sinners.

I believe the amendment over-reaches and over-steps by even denying secular civil unions and becomes condemnatory. It looks like homosexual hate even though I'm sure that wasn't the thinking or intent, but as much as my heart cried to defend marriage as God gave it, I must abstain from supporting the amendment because of this over-reach.

I will not vote against it, either. I just won't vote. If it is defeated I believe that the perceived "hate" in the over-reach is why and I would hope that you try again and just make it a defense of marriage without the barring any and all legal rights "hate."

Rev. Steven Mullenix
Warrenton

---------------------------------------------------------

For what it’s worth, the N.C. Constitution is supposed to be a document that establishes the form of government for the state and the rights of its citizens.

The proposed marriage amendment does neither. It makes no statement on government and it constrains the rights of North Carolina's citizens. This amendment has NO PLACE in the constitution.

P. Nixon Alexander
Zebulon

---------------------------------------------------------

I am a gardener. I am a classical singer. I am a responsible pet owner. I am an amateur photographer. I feed the birds. I feed the squirrels. I am an organic gardener. I don’t litter. I am a good neighbor. I am a good employee. I pay my bills and my taxes. I take care of myself. I have never been on unemployment. I have never taken charity. I shop locally. I drive a fuel efficient vehicle. I work to reduce my carbon footprint and to conserve water. I am informed. I am educated. Most importantly, I am a citizen. I am a voter.

So, with all these things that I am, why do so many people think that it’s OK to discriminate against someone like me?

Amendment One is mean-spirited, divisive and ultimately discriminatory. Discriminatory to someone like me. I can’t help but believe that we all deserve better.

Karen Bender
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

My sample ballot shows Amendment 1 to the N.C. Constitution as having a single sentence.

The "full text" of the amendment adds a second sentence that indicates that the amendment does not prohibit a private party from entering into a contract with another private party. This is probably intended to keep the amendment out of the business arena.

The first issue is whether the second sentence, which is not on the ballot, can be approved by the voters. If not, then all existing and prospective business organizations may be prohibited, e.g., partnerships, limited liability companies, and certain corporations.

Further, even if the second sentence is somehow incorporated into the amendment in the ballot, the reference to contracts limits its applicability. For example, Chapter 59 Article 2 of the NC General Statutes, the "Uniform Partnership Act", has numerous examples of situations in which partnerships are formed outside of contracts.

The amendment will certainly keep the lawyers busy.

Robert Tait
Apex

---------------------------------------------------------

Here I am, a hetero, married father of three, feeling so embittered by the proposed Amendment 1 that I actually wonder if I should keep living in the state if it passes. How much more alienated would I feel were I one of the people this piece of mean-spirited legislation is directly aimed at?

So while I hope for the best, I prepare for the worst, and ask my fellow Tar Heels to stay, and be of good heart, even if the vote goes awry. My family, my friends, my colleagues and most I know equally abhor this effort to take away your dignity. You don't have to prove anything to us. You are North Carolinians - you are us. We will meet this challenge together.

Douglas Nydick
Durham

-----------------------
First, it is the marriage amendment and not Amendment One! Your ads are also filled with many errors and you know it. But it was lies that also made the Supreme Court pass Roe v. Wade! I hope that won’t ever happen again.

Second, if you said it isn’t needed because the law already prevents same-sex marriage then why oppose the amendment? It is needed to stop a judge from changing the status quo. That is what you forced on us!

Third, what will God’s wrath be for society going against His law? I am sure that Sodom had children when they were destroyed. Just read the Bible and the older Apostolic Christians and major Christian Churches and others saying it is wrong. We are all one body and thus are concerned and pray for those who do these unnatural acts. Children need a male father and female mother. To give in to same-sex marriage will be to not defend God’s laws.

God knows what you check in the voting booth and remember Pascal’s Wager. If you are wrong in what you vote could you affect where you spend eternity? Voting to oppose God’s known law is a serious and critical decision and not something to take lightly. We love you but not the lifestyle since it is sinful. Think of God and how He would want you to act.

Joseph J. Rothengast
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------
Let’s imagine the following scenario, if Jesus were teaching in NC now: A group of devout believers and their leaders approached Jesus saying, Rabbi, on Tuesday will you be voting for or against Amendment 1. Jesus, knowing what was in their hearts, looked at them with love and said, Those who live in love live in God and God in them. A long silence followed. They dared not ask him any other questions but henceforth looked for ways to silence him.

Jeanine Driscoll
Mebane
---------------------------------------------------------

Vote FOR Amendment One. It will help support the integrity of marriage, and to more permanently prohibit the ongoing liberal effort to legitimize homosexual behavior. Apostle Paul clearly positions, 1 Cor.6:9, adulterers, thieves, the greedy and others with homosexuals. We don't condone actively participating thieves, or active adulterers, or any ongoing individual behavior that works against the Creator's plan as it has been documented. If it is not right behavior, hen it is not right for marriage to be based on this behavior.

People cannot be stopped from behaving badly, but we can save marriage in North Carolina for one man with one woman as it should be. Thirty of the 50 states of our Union have already taken this step. The Rev. Billy Graham has endorsed One Man-One Woman Marriage. Vote for Amendment One. Vote to preserve marriage.

William Barnhill
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Reading the numerous letters to the editor concerning the so-called marriage amendment, I am struck by how many letter writers profess to KNOW what God thinks. Imagine the breathtaking arrogance! Take a look in the mirror, folks: Like the rest of us, you are one, puny, imperfect human being, an infinitesimal speck in the universe. You do not, indeed cannot, speak for God. Get a little humility – before, who knows, God decides to smite you with a lightening bolt or something as a rebuke for your outrageous impudence.

Mina Cheek Fraser
Pittsboro

--------------------

Black voters favor the amendment 51 to 39 percent – News & Observer, April 25

It took over 100 years to strip the N.C. Constitution of Articles that legalized discrimination. N.C. was still passing laws promoting separate-but-equal for races into the 1960s. The irony is that African-Americans may be the group that tilts the vote to restore discrimination to our Constitution. I guess as long as they're not the target of discrimination, it’s OK.

Douglas Williams
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The problem with the arguments over the NC marriage amendment is the definition of the word "marriage." Like many words, the word "marriage" has more than one meaning. My church defines marriage as a religious sacrament that binds a man and a woman together under God forever. The state of North Carolina is not a religion and can only define marriage as a civil contract with terms and conditions of agreement between two people. It is clear to me that when the state addresses "marriage" it refers to the civil contract of "marriage" not the religious sacrament. Thus marriage contracts like all contracts must be free and open to all citizens. Gay people can not be excluded from the benefits of the marriage contract any more than blacks, Jews, the elderly or the Irish.

Many churches and ministers teach that homosexuality is sinful so it is understandable that many citizens do not approve of people who are gay. But in a free society you can't deny an unpopular group equal protection under the law. Marriage is a legal contract that applies freely to all citizens. The North Carolina marriage amendment is plain and simple discrimination. I will vote no.

Chip Williams
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
"Just say no" (Our Views, May 6) is beautifully written about a timely topic. Regarding the so called gay marriage amendment, which will be voted on Tuesday, the problem is summarized succinctly by the author,” Constitutional Amendments should be solidly constructed to protect rights and weather the test of time.”

The fact that it is an attempt to unify the Republican Party, by appealing to its conservative church base is appalling. These rights are not for politicians or for churches to meddle in; never have been. Once again the separation of church and state is becoming challenged.

Today, at church, for the third time, we were assaulted with the definition of our rights as Catholics, and our duties to vote for this amendment. How far have we come from feudal times, when the church controlled everything, and even the Kings of England, were subject to its decisions? We are not moving forward but backward. It is time to assert the free will we were born with, and vote with our consciences, free from outside influences.

Norman Singer
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

The use of the Bible to support Amendment One is akin to leaning on a weak reed. Abraham married Sarah and Hagar, making the case for bigamy. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines, making the case for polygamy.

Jesus didn't marry, nor did Paul, leaving some to wonder about Paul's thorn in the flesh.

The disciples left everything, including Peter's mother-in-law, to follow Jesus. I wonder about their marriages.

Maybe we could use Scripture to inspire us to do something really useful, like loving our neighbor as ourselves.

I'm voting "no.".

William Ferrell
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

Come Wednesday, all votes will be counted, and we will learn who we are as a community. I don’t believe Amendment One reflects our values. I ask you to review the proposed amendment and your conscience and vote against on Amendment One.

Amendment One will not change anything in North Carolina, there are already laws that ban civil unions. If passed, it will mostly be a statement of intolerance, that in the name of God and civil law, we hate. Our religion will become our government, our government a religion.

During Sunday services, we gathered in communities of faith, sharing the Good News to understand the Love which Jesus taught. Letters were read from the bishops. Sermons and homilies from preachers and priests proclaiming the sins and abominations of the homosexual, their evidence to persuade congregations to support the Marriage Amendment. Though the word love was discussed.

We listened closely to the preacher’s sermon, as it, in some ways, brings God into our daily lives. When he was done, did he direct: Who among us should cast the first vote? Did you ask yourself how adopting this hateful amendment brings you closer to God or protects your marriage, by denying another?

Consider the one thing we do know, which is love. The possibility the love shared between two gay people may be as legitimate as ours.
With my love, support is mutual, comfort found in hands held gently, just knowing she’s there. Tears of joy, of sorrow, too, shared throughout our life. Wretched I am, when her tears were caused by me. Forgiveness. Morning coffee. Someone who listens into the evening. Similar, I’m sure, to your love, and theirs, too. Love encompasses all human kindness, compassion and affection.

Love, is what Tuesday’s vote is about. Please reject Amendment One.

James Brigham
High Point

---------------------------------------------------------

One of the great things about America is our religious freedom. Thanks to our Constitution, any citizen can practice whatever beliefs they wish without having to bend to the will of an oppressive government.

Apparently some misguided residents of North Carolina wish to change this. Under the guise of “protecting” marriage, these intolerant fundamentalists have championed an amendment aimed at restricting gay marriage based entirely on religious principles. They certainly have a right to their own beliefs, but they do not have the right to force those beliefs on others.

I understand that proponents of the amendment truly believe that their God forbids gay marriage. However, their God is not the God of all North Carolinians. If you do not believe in gay marriage, then by all means don't marry someone of the same gender. Under no circumstances, though, do you have the right to force your religion on others. Please end this narrow-minded bigotry and vote against Amendment One.

Logan Johnson
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------

There is much speculation and disagreement among North Carolinians as to whether the proposed Amendment One measures up to Christian principles or is antithetical to them.

A good approach to this dilemma might be to examine the issue in the context of the golden rule, an idea that is found in the Christian Bible and firmly ensconced in Christian dogma. How would the supporters of Amendment One feel if they were in the minority and heterosexual marriage were banned? Christians are urged to vote accordingly.

Sandy Mitchell
Southport
---------------------------------------------------------

No matter what your feelings are about gay marriage, we should all be very concerned about the fact that the proposed Amendment One fundamentally changes everyone's First Amendment rights, as defined by our US Constitution. The Constitution stipulates our rights to religious freedom (for everyone, regardless of affiliation) and for separation of church and state. Those supporting the proposed NC constitutional amendment quote the (Christian) Bible as justification for the change. In doing so, they highlight why this proposal violates both freedom for all citizens to believe and practice their own religious views, and our fundamental right to have our democracy separated from any religious tenets.

We should all vote NO on Tuesday to protect our fundamental religious freedoms.

Nancy Mullin
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment One states that marriage is only between one man and one woman. Has anyone asked the writers to define man and woman? There are many naturally occurring conditions where the gender lines are blurred. There are chromosomal, genetic, hormonal, anatomical and neurological conditions that all have to be considered. The Olympic Games require many doctors and scientists to evaluate a person if gender is questioned. Will the state need to hire experts to evaluate the gender of people before they get married if the amendment passes?

Who will intersex people be able to marry? Intersex conditions appear in ~1 of 2000 births (that’s ~5000 people in North Carolina). Will the state have to decide who these people can or cant marry on an individual basis?

What about the couple whose story was presented in the N&O, where a man and woman married then the man got a sex change? Will they be automatically divorced by the state?

Marie Piascik
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve been reading both sides of the Amendment 1 arguments in this forum for the past month, both from the religious right and from the more civic minded. The one observation that keeps coming to mind is the observation made by Republican Speaker Thom Tillis. This man has some historical perspective. He realizes that if this amendment passes, it’ll probably be “overturned in 20 years.” The younger generation has no such discrimination against gay citizens.

This gives me hope for the future, when history tells us that the present conservative mindset will look pretty silly. So, if it passes, the people who it discriminates against will have to wait another couple of decades, which is very unfortunate, but at least history tells us that we have good reason to think it’s temporary.

Richard Chartrand
Chapel HIll
---------------------------------------------------------

I have always found myself blessed to have been born, raised and educated in the Catholic tradition. It has a rich history of fighting for social justice and peace. As I drove home from mass today, the words from the first letter of John have been echoing in my ears. Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8) I voted against Amendment One. I voted for Love, because God is love.

Newman Aguiar
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

In an interview in 1978, James Baldwin, novelist, playwright and poet, shared, “Everybody’s journey is individual. You don't know with whom you're going to fall in love. No one has a right to make your choice for you, or to penalize you for being in love. In a sense, I think they've put themselves in prison.”

Our states constitution is designed to protect our rights as we live this journey; it is not intended to diminish them. Please vote no May 8 to the North Carolina Marriage Amendment.

Ken Branch
Raleigh

-------------------
I have always thought of the Constitution as a benevolent document that guaranteed my rights as a citizen. I can freely assemble, I can speak my mind, I can worship as I please, the list is familiar, or else it should be. Now we North Carolinians are contemplating an amendment to make our Constitution a document that restricts our freedom and choice. I urge all people who wish to live their lives as they please, doing harm to no one else, to vote against this amendment.

Gary Pellom
Durham
-------------------

I have just seen the full-page political advertisement quoting Billy Graham as being in favor of Amendment One. It was paid for by the Billy Graham Foundation, whose tax-exempt status should certainly now be examined. Did people really give their hard earned money to this supposed religious foundation for purposes such as this? How many thousands of school lunches for poor children could have been paid for with the money this political ad cost?

I can remember during the infamous anti-homosexual crusade of Anita Bryant in 1977, the Graham actually came across as a voice of reason, not condemning her hate-filled movement, but not supporting it either.

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the Grahams, father and son Franklin, have taken yet another right-wing stand. After all, Billy Graham has been there with the Republicans ever since President Harry Truman denounced him as “a man who just wants to get his picture in the papers.”

Graham was the one white voice that could have calmed the waters, helped save the South from so much meanness and violence over civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. He did nothing.

Marshall Frady’s superb biography of Graham spells out in embarrassing detail how Graham always aligned himself with the rich and powerful. You have to ask yourself what spending untold thousands of dollars on a mean-spirited political ad has to do with the compassionate teachings of a simple Jewish carpenter, who said not one word about homosexuals.

Perry Deane Young
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

In his Point of View essay “The Marriage Amendment of 1875” (May 5), Gene Nichol reminds us that until 1971, when a new charter was adopted, the North Carolina state constitution banned interracial marriages.
In the context of such outdated and prejudicial statutes, it might be recalled that until 1835 the state constitution barred Catholics from holding public office. Article 32 stated: No Person who shall deny the being of God, or the Truth of the Protestant Religion, or the Divine authority of the Old or New Testaments...shall be capable of holding any office...within this State.

The highly respected Catholic, William Gaston, urged his fellow delegates to the constitutional convention that they follow the federal constitution and eliminate all religious tests for public office. He had to accept a compromise: one had to be a Christian to serve in public office.

Even today, Article VI of the Constitution: Suffrage and Eligibility to Office, disqualifies "any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." Constitutionally, no agnostic or atheist is eligible to serve in public office in this state.

William Powers
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

If you are pro-amendment, most likely you believe homosexuality is a sin, that it will erode traditional marriage and that allowing gays to marry will cause homosexuality to "rub off" on others or even turn your children gay. Maybe the following will help:

1- Despite the way proponents have invoked their Christian beliefs, Christ himself never seemed the least bit concerned about it, considering he was never once quoted on the subject. If you ever get to know someone gay you will realize they did not choose it. God created them that way.

2- Worried about the erosion of traditional marriage? Great! How about an amendment banning divorce and infidelity? Some amendment proponents have even said that marriage is for the purpose of having children. Does this mean the marriages of childless couples are invalid? If you are truly so concerned about an impact on children, why would you support something that is guaranteed to harm them?

3- The ONLY true reason so many people find it hard seeing gay couples in public is because they grew up believing it was taboo and just never had exposure to it. My long deceased grandfathers would have likely cringed to see an inter-racial couple during their lifetimes, while kids today think nothing of seeing a black husband/white wife, etc. Think to yourself whether anything could cause you to become gay yourself. So, what makes you think your child, if he or she were born “straight” is going to somehow become gay if they see same-sex couples? What is there to fear?

To recap: Jesus never spoke a word against homosexuality so scratch that excuse; divorce and infidelity are the real enemies of traditional marriage, and just like my eyes don't turn blue when I see a blue-eyed person, no one is going to become gay after exposure to a homosexual. Are you basing your opinion on logic or just what you've grown up believing? Don't we all have imminently more important issues to be concerned with anyway?

Julie Dwyer
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

I love living here. I grew up in Virginia and still feel the chirp of my home state since we share a state flower and bird. My husband and I chose this area as our home 10 years ago. We vetted many cities and hand picked Raleigh for myriad reasons.

We are happily entrenched in this community. Our sons thrive in public school. My husband works for a large employer in the region and volunteers with our sons at the local food bank. I run a marketing consulting business, shop the local farmers markets, volunteer at my sons school, and serve on the board of SAFEchild. As a family, we donate our time and money to help our community.

For the past several months we have traveled across the United States. As we traverse this continent we proudly tell people North Carolina is home. I have noted that in city after city we get the same response. People comment that our state is beautiful and go on to wonder about age old stereotypes of discrimination and illiteracy. Never mind that some of the richest minds reside in the Triangle and that the brain trust of some major universities call North Carolina home. (Mis)perceptions continue to color our country’s view of us.

Ongoing press about the debacle of Wake County schools and the push to pass Amendment One isn’t helping. There has been so much chatter about being the only Southern state to not pass something like Amendment One. Why not wear that as a badge? We can learn by looking back. We will fail by moving backward

Ilina Ewen
Raleigh

----------------------
The current debate over whether to amend our state constitution raises the issue of what should be required to amend any state's constitution. Because there are often heated arguments about issues that lead to proposed amendments – arguments that are not always well reasoned and fail to take adequate account of the consequences – it seems clear that amending a constitution should require a process that is drawn out over a significant period of time and perhaps demands more than a simple majority vote in order to pass. For example, suppose that any proposed amendment had to be placed on the ballot on two successive election years. That way, more discussion, more weighing of consequences, more gathering of evidence could take place. This would generally result in wiser decisions.

Similarly, because the constitution is our most basic, lasting set of laws, perhaps a simple majority should not be sufficient to change it. After all, it is the most difficult to change subsequently, when "wiser heads" might prevail. Perhaps a 60% majority should be required, or perhaps a 60% majority should be required to pass an amendment in the first year of its proposal and only a 50% majority required in the second year of its proposal.

Interestingly, any changes such as I suggest would need to be made by a constitutional amendment. That would be fine; and I would be happy if that amendment had to, itself, meet the time or percentage criteria that it proposes. At least we voters would be less likely to make the very discriminatory, backward-looking change that is now proposed.

Robert P. Hawkins, Ph.D.
Cary

------------

I am a North Carolina Christian minister who loves God, people and baseball. God loves marriage; hates divorce; and also loves baseball. He throws into the game of life some straight balls, curve balls and a few knuckle balls with which we deal in society.

Amendment One is a political postulate rather than a religious one. It is an aggressive over-reach on the purported issue of gay marriage using intentionally vague language which can be legally dangerous to at least a half-dozen non-traditional families in our local congregation.

I pray that Christians, North Carolinians and baseball lovers alike will not be duped into voting for this divisive construct floated as Amendment One.

Robert P. Kennel
Holly Springs

---------------------------------------------------------

I have a dear relative who is gay. I also have a friend who struggles with same-sex attraction, but knows that committing to a homosexual lifestyle will not fulfill his deepest longings.

Sexuality is a behavior, not simply an orientation. How can something so ingrained and so difficult to change be a behavior? Because the fact is people can and have changed. And even if someone did all they could and never did change, it still would not make an unhealthy practice a healthy practice. God does not call something "sin" because of some arbitrary decision He decides to make. He calls something sin because that behavior is actually harmful to a person's well-being. Too often we don't believe Him to our detriment.

Homosexual behavior is unhealthy to an individual because, by its own nature, it's a counterfeit. It cannot satisfy the real need that person has. This is what my friend has come to know. And what my dear relative is in the process of learning. That is the reason the majority of homosexuals in "committed, monogamous" relationships allow some room for outside sexual activity. What they are searching for cannot be found in gay sex, monogamous or not.

Ricky DiMartino
Morganton

---------------------------------------------------------

This week my Catholic bishop sent me a strange post-card and urged me to “Vote for Marriage” on Tuesday. I wondered why he wanted the sacrament of marriage debased by putting it into a secular constitutional document and letting a non-Catholic court decide what it means.
I’m not a church attorney (though I was mistaken for one last week at a Durham forum on the amendment that my local parish organized). Putting on my Stephen Colbert church lawyer frock, couldn’t it be argued that the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized is one marriage between one man and one woman? That means no divorce. Wouldn’t adultery violate the N.C. Constitution?

Might the constitutional amendment delegitimize all previous divorces going back through Tar Heel history by way of the doctrine of relation back? I dare not venture into heretical questions about whether the proposed amendment is a sneak attack on the mystical relationship of the Church to our Lord, or the relationship between consecrated nuns and the Church, these not being marriages authorized by the proposed amendment.

I pray the Supreme Court of North Carolina doesn’t have to sort it all out.

Alex Charns
Durham
------------------------------------

I'm deeply respectful of the power for good of religious faith. But I'm totally perplexed by faith-based support for Amendment 1. Here's why:

First, even if you accept (which I don't) that the Bible forbids homosexuality, the Bible (at least the Old Testament) also says it's OK to own slaves. Thankfully we've found a way to reinterpret that precept; why not this one?

Second, even if you have religious objections to same-sex couples, why should the state or the state constitution have anything to say about that? Some religious people/organizations frown on marriage between two people of different religions – should the state or state constitution have anything to say about what religion your spouse practices? Frown on gay marriage or civil union if you must, but why get the state constitution involved?

And third, it wasn't all that long ago that people in this state argued that marriage between a black person and a white person was a sin and a crime. Is this situation really any different?

I deeply hope that NC citizens who are motivated by religious beliefs to support Amendment 1 will ask these questions before they vote. And then I hope they'll join me in voting "No" on Amendment 1.

Laura Svetkey
Chapel Hill

---------------------

A constitution serves the purpose of regulating the government. We The People are regulated by laws. When The People want to regulate the behavior of government, we amend the Constitution.

Homosexuality is sexual nonconformity. The government has no business regulating either sexuality or nonconformity. Thomas Jefferson said it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Gay marriage neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. In fact, it’s already illegal in our State.

The political argument that North Carolina is not equipped to handle gay marriage, I must offer an analogy from my own career. I am a paramedic, and if for some reason I happened to be ill-equipped to handle a particular 911 call, under no circumstances would it be acceptable for me to make a policy of simply banning any 911 call that doesn’t fit my pre-existing protocols.

Only a progressive would believe that the government has the right to tell you what to eat, what to purchase, what car to drive or who you can spend the rest of your life with.

Jim Miller
Kill Devil Hills

---------------------------------------------------------

Same-sex marriage proponents (of whatever sexual orientation) are desperate. Their true intent is to redefine marriage; it is a lie if they deny it. They have sought to convince voters that passing Amendment One would harm children, families, unmarried women and unmarried seniors despite the truth that these relationships are secured with the legal protections of a will, healthcare proxy, civil and criminal laws.

Activists use the argument that Jesus never spoke of same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage. He didn’t have to; he merely referred to the Word of God as he did at a marriage feast when some Sadducees cornered him with a question about marriage and the resurrection. Jesus replied, You do not know the Scriptures.

On another occasion when asked about divorce Jesus said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female? For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife.

The Old Testament is the Bible that Jesus read. Activists seek to overrule the decree that God sanctified from the beginning. A man cannot be a wife; a female cannot be a husband. Vote FOR the Amendment.
William Gaddis
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Every day I see and hear more and more people trying to convince people who know nothing about Amendment 1 that there way of thinking is the right one and they should vote their way. The thing is that most people who either do not know about it and many other people who have been tricked into an opinion through the media and their comrades have no real sake in this legislation.

The only people who should care are affected by it (i.e. gays and people who can't stand gays getting married), but the majority of people voting are liberals who are pro-gay rights and anti-conservative and conservatives who hate liberals and gays. I am not saying which way to vote – just not to vote based on party lines and propaganda and if after looking at the bill itself, if you are gay or if you really can't stand the thought of gays getting married that much, you should vote.

David Palmieri
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

The state should not tell religion how to define the sacrament of marriage. Conversely, religion should not tell the state how to define the legal meaning of marriage. For the state, marriage is a legal contract between two adults, providing for both rights and responsibilities. The proposed amendment pertains to the legal definition of marriage.

Greg Bottomley
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

The general flow of North Carolina’s constitutional history has been to extend liberty and to allow greater equality and participation in our society. There are notable exceptions to this general trend such as the stripping of free black voting rights in 1835, mandating segregated schools and banning interracial marriage in 1875, and the efforts to disenfranchise African-Americans in 1900. Each of these exceptions was an attempt to codify a majorities disdain and fear of a minority into law.

As we know, North Carolinians later eliminated these prejudicial components from our constitution and generally acknowledge them to be grievous, regrettable errors that needed to be remedied.

North Carolina faces another of these moments as we consider a constitutional amendment that uses cultural or religious preferences to elevate one segment of our population while limiting the rights and protections of another. I hope that we have learned that enshrining bigotry in our constitution places us on the wrong side of history. I urge all North Carolinians to vote no on Amendment One.

Daniel L. Fountain
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

What to think when the reclusive, 93-year-old Billy Graham decides to weigh in on a matter that encourages bigotry, divisiveness and exclusion? We recall when a younger, more enlightened Graham warned a white audience about the evils of segregation and said, "We have been proud and thought we were better than any other race, any other people. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to stumble into hell because of our pride."

If only Graham could remember what motivated him at the time. Then, his full-page ad might be about love, tolerance and inclusion, stating, "We have been proud and thought we were better than people with other sexual orientations. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to stumble into hell because of our pride."

While we can feel compassionate toward an old man who remains shackled to antiquated ideas, we can still come together as one and vote against Amendment One.
William Meyer
Durham

------------------------------------------

I am a true Tar Heel born and bred in a small Eastern NC town and have lived in the state all of my life. Amid all of these moral, religious, and legal arguments for and against Amendment One, I keep going back to how I was raised to value and respect my neighbor’s privacy, which is what I would be doing by voting against the amendment.

We might not have liked or even approved of our neighbors, but as long as no one was getting hurt, frankly, we minded our own business. (If you think that someone is getting hurt in same-sex couple households, check out the positions of professional organizations like AMA, APA and NASW.)

So fellow Tar Heels, you worry about you and yours and I will worry about me and mine and vote no. It’s a free country, after all.

Joy Stewart
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

I was stunned by some of the pro-Amendment One letters printed April 29. According to one, only religious folk have self control. Really? So that's why there are no religious figures in the news getting arrested or being found in extramarital relationships (some of which are same-sex, not so surprisingly). There's a certain arrogance I see regularly in right-wing Christians who apparently believe that they alone have morals, ethics or generally good behavior – while at the same time exhibiting what I consider bad behavior: bigotry, hate, fear-mongering, lying in furtherance of political agendas. But I shouldn't be surprised. The writer avows he is proud to be a bigot.

Another thinks that all that need be said is that only liberals and atheists are against Amendment One. I can't imagine a philosophy more shallow than that, but in any case, it's wrong. Half the letters that accompanied his were from ordained ministers or religious congregations. Of course, he probably thinks that they're from the "wrong" group of believers. Enough said.

Tom Sisk
Pittsboro

---------------------------------------------------------

The recent "Keeping Tradition Safe" Other Opinion and "Immoral Rights" letter condemn homosexuality by association with stunted human reproduction, promiscuity, alcoholism, increased abortion rates, polygamy, drug use, bestiality, immorality, bigotry – and the decline and fall of entire civilizations. Guess that about covers it.

My, but Amendment One is certainly bringing some sick puppies out of the closet!

Fred crouch
Warrensville

---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment supporters frequently claim that unmarried couples can simply execute legal documents to protect their families. Don't be fooled! Having practiced law and been in this situation myself, I assure you this claim is very misleading.

Execution of expensive documents such as wills, contracts and powers of attorney, though recommended, can replicate only a few of the hundreds of legal rights and benefits automatically created by a $60 marriage license. For example, despite having spent thousands of dollars on documents attempting to protect our family from legal and financial risks, if my partner died tomorrow there is no document allowing me to claim social security benefits, no document that could guarantee me uncontestable right to custody of our three children.

Few couples actually execute them due to cost or lack of awareness, and even if they do, the rights created can often be revoked at any time, sometimes unilaterally by one partner leaving the other partner and any affected children unprotected.

Even worse, law professors at every single law school in the state warn that passage of Amendment One could undermine the enforceability of existing documents protecting families and children. That is a risk our state cannot afford to take.

Cathy Rimer-Surles
Durham
---------------------------------------------------------

For the first time in our country's history, we are on the verge of amending our constitution to deny rights. Amendment One will ban civil unions and strip domestic partnership benefits. It will eliminate health care, prescription drug coverage and other benefits for public employees and children receiving domestic partnership benefits. And it will threaten protections for all unmarried couples in North Carolina. Why would any business move to a state that discriminates against children because their parents aren't married? What are we thinking?

Ann Moss Joyner
Mebane
---------------------------------------------------------

In North Carolina, we are wasting so much time and money on this issue. There are so many other issues in our state that require immediate attention. We are being asked to vote on an amendment that will marginalize a large segment of our population. Amendment One does not just deny gay couples the right to enter into a domestic union, but it also denies rights to all domestic partnerships and to children of these partnerships.

We are Catholic and are outraged that our bishop is telling us to vote for the amendment. We believe that a loving, committed domestic partnership, gay or straight, is just as valuable and a blessing to the community as our marriage of 38 years. Denying those rights does not protect our marriage. This amendment will hurt families. It will hurt our state.

Paul and Marianne Williams
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Consider the results of same-sex marriage (SSM). SSM advocates have asked the courts to be neutral in judging the preference for marriage. Should the Marriage Protection Amendment fail, there would be suits for SSM and, if advocates won, there would be three forms of marriage at first: male, female and traditional. Once it has been argued that the state has no right to prefer one form of marriage over another and it’s legal to express your subjective desire with autonomy, what could legally prevent man-boy, polygamous or polyandrous marriages or grandma from marrying her grandchild? This could be a legal consequence if marriage is redefined.

Results in states that have allowed SSM (usually by legislative fiat) show some personal and religious freedoms are lost. A N.M photographer was sued because she didn’t want to take pictures of a same-sex couple, a N.Y. Jewish school was forced to provide dormitory quarters for a same-sex couple, and some religious charities have lost their rights. The wife of a Colorado shopowner gave a pamphlet about homosexuality to a gay employee. She was charged under gay rights ordinances, fined and ordered to attend compulsory counseling.

Ideas have consequences.

Rob Kelley
Henderson
---------------------------------------------------------

As parents of two boys, ages 4 and 7, we would like to address this letter to those fellow parents of young children thinking of voting for Amendment One. We want to ask you to do something, something that you probably already do. Go into your children's room during nap time or at night after they go to sleep. Watch them breathe. Watch their tiny chests rise and fall. Feel that unbounded gratitude and fierce protectiveness well up inside you.

Then think about their future. Think about them growing up, going to middle and high school, making friends, falling in love, getting their heart broken, finding that special someone, getting married. How does it make you feel? Proud and hopeful and a little desperate? Like you would do anything, anything at all for them?

Now, would it change how you feel if your son came home and said he was in love with a boy, or your daughter with a girl? In the end would it change your heart? Would you still love and cherish and support your child no matter what? Or would other people’s opinion matter more?

James and Kristy Crooks
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

I read with dismay about the extra-marital affair of Charles Thomas, chief of staff for Republican Speaker of the House Thom Tillis. With even more dismay, I read that Tillis "questioned five of his 10 remaining staff members, who had been the subject of rumors related to inappropriate behavior" and yet another staffer resigned for an illicit affair.

Is this the Thom Tillis who leads the House of Representatives in the Great State of North Carolina? The Thom Tillis who has pushed the Republican "family values" Constitutional Amendment that declares, "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”?

Perhaps the Honorable Speaker needs to focus less on trying to legislate the behavior of millions of North Carolinians and look at who is in his inner circle. These are the people advising, researching, recommending and ultimately dictating policy to the rest of us? Hmm.

Michele K. Burris
Chapel Hill
----------------------------
Apparently, having a degree in moral theology does not make one an expert in Logic or reasonable thinking. In Ron Agnelli’s Other Opinion article (April 28) arguing for the so-called marriage amendment, he starts his argument with the false premise that ‘discrimination’ is not the right question.

It is precisely the right question because this amendment limits the definition of marriage. Amendments to constitutions, national or state, are most obviously added to expand rights to citizens not take them away. All or most amendments that did limit rights, have been overturned, as several N&O authors have already pointed out. For better or for worse, we can still drink alcohol and marry anybody of any race we want to.

One of the more egregious statements Agnelli makes is that “Under the amendment, a homosexual person ‘enjoys’ the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a heterosexual person”. What can he possibly be thinking? If the situation were reversed would he “enjoy” marrying another man, as a matter of law?

Agnelli states: “the fact that marriage and the family is the foundation upon which society is built.” Anyone against this amendment is also someone who cares about many things, not the least of which is the truth of this statement. The idea of marriage as a commitment, one person to another, is one of the foundations of a just society. One we should not limit.

This amendment is about limiting people’s rights. It is about religious extremists forcing their beliefs on a people who live in a country based on a separation of church and state. I will vote against it.

Paul Kauffmann
Durham

Charlotte Observer: A bad week for marriage in N.C.

bwheeler — Sat, 05 May 2012 10:24:51 -0400

The Charlotte Observer, our sister McClatchy paper, had this to say about Amendment One this week. Find The N&O's editorial position on Sunday's editorial page.

A bad week for marriage in N.C.

Public infidelities a reminder of amendment’s selective morality

North Carolinians had some bipartisan, high-profile reminders last week that while some among us might see gay unions as a threat to marriage, the institution is already taking a pretty good pummeling from heterosexuals.

First, there was the ongoing, shower-inducing trial of former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, at which we learned that the star witness against the philandering former Democratic candidate for president is a married political aide who also engaged in an adulterous one-night stand.

Later in the week, the (Raleigh) News & Observer told us of Charles Thomas, the chief of staff of Republican N.C. House Speaker Thom Tillis. Thomas, a former one-term lawmaker from Asheville, resigned after being caught carrying on with a lobbyist for the homebuilding industry. The apparent affair might have been deliciously ironic given Tillis’ support for Amendment One, except for the sobering reality that two spouses were surely seeing their families in tatters, thanks to a now-public infidelity.

So tell us again what we’re protecting marriage from on May 8?

In one week, North Carolina will vote on Amendment One, which would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in the state. You’ll read much in the next seven days about the amendment and its potentially harmful impact, legal and otherwise. But it was the past seven days that reminded us again how at least some of those who support the amendment are engaging in selective morality in their effort to get government tangled this deeply in its citizens’ behavior.

You’ve heard those moral arguments, of course – how scripture has harsh words for homosexuality, including labeling it an “abomination.” Let’s set aside the fact that some Biblical scholars disagree on the specifics and intent of the nine passages commonly cited in the condemnation of homosexuality. Wouldn’t infidelity, by scriptural measure, be worse? After all, adultery rises to the level of being addressed by one of the commandments that Moses cradled.

But while some can’t flip to Leviticus fast enough when the topic of same-sex marriage comes up, no one is rushing forth with legislation outlawing infidelity. The simple reason: We don’t want to have government that deeply involved in legislating our behaviors.

Yes, we’re a country based on laws that spring from our values, and those values are rooted historically in the faith of our forefathers. But those laws, for the most part, are protective – they shield us from harmful behavior, not merely behavior with which we disagree.

We have yet to see a compelling argument that a committed same-sex marriage is harmful to anyone, let alone the institution of marriage. What Amendment One does, then, is give us a government mired in regulating sin. That, along with the amendment’s discriminatory intent, should give North Carolinians good reason to pause one week from today.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/30/3209351/a-bad-week-for-marriage-in-nc.html#storylink=cpy

Find it here.

Letters to the editor: Hearing aids, addictions and fracking

bwheeler — Sat, 05 May 2012 06:00:00 -0400

We've devoted so much space to the Amendment One debate over the past month that many letters on other topics got overrun. Here are more than a dozen.

Yes, hearing aids are expensive, as a recent letter-writer protested. Knowing they are costly, only about 15 percent of the estimated 30 million with hearing impairment even bother to seek help. Most insurance policies offer no coverage at all. Because hearing loss can have serious side effects, the condition should not be ignored.

Help is available to those with limited incomes. Check the website of the Hearing Loss Association of America. Listed there is contact information for a number of organizations that offer assistance. Your public library will help you with the research.

To focus on one excellent source: Lions Club International lists many of the hearing aid banks run by clubs around the U.S. They collect and recycle used hearing aids and give referrals to cooperating audiologists and dispensers. LCI has an affordable hearing aid program that contracts with a major manufacturer to supply new aids to clubs, which then donate them via the above-mentioned dispensers.

As for comparing costs with iPhones and iPads, few of us appreciate the complex technology involved. My brother, who is retired from a career in audiology, says, Why should we believe that smaller should be cheaper? A hearing aid that automatically adjusts to different listening environments is not unlike a car that parks itself, and they don’t come cheap.

Carol Cary
Cary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Jim Jenkins’ April 19 column, he really went on a binge about what’s so terrible about Mitt Romney running for president. Most of his tirade was about the fact that Romney is a wealthy man and therefore couldn’t possibly have the common touch with the common man.

I guess if a president had owned 8,000 acres of prime farmland and had a net worth of $525 million that would dictate that he would make a terrible president. That’s what the net worth of President George Washington was in today’s dollars.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and JFK were both millionaires (all inherited), and it was all right for them to be president because they were Democrats.

We should remember, too, that Democrats Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank had the wonderful idea that everyone should own a home regardless of their incomes or credit ratings, resulting in economic turmoil. But that’s OK; they’re Democrats.

I’m registered unaffiliated, but I do wish newspaper pundits would make some sort of effort to be objective and not resort to mud-throwing writing. It’s insulting to the intellect of their readers or it should be.

Bob Harper
Tarboro

----------------------------------------------------------

As a neuroscientist, I’ve devoted my career to understanding how the brain works when it comes to addiction. Every day, my colleagues and I are engaged in work that contributes to local and global scientific ingenuity and innovation. Collectively, we’re working to unlock the mysteries of the brain and bolster efforts to develop new treatments for addiction to alcohol, nicotine and other devastating drugs of abuse.

Addiction to drugs, not only destroys the addict, it also destroys their families and friends and has devastating effects on the society. We believe that addiction is a treatable brain disease. Our research at Duke University is focused in solving the mystery of addiction and finding proper treatment for it. This is only possible through funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Without a strong commitment from the Congress to make science a national priority, many research projects and great ideas may be shelved due to expected budget cuts for NIH and NSF. I urge U.S. Rep. David Price and U.S. Sens. Richard Burr and Kay Hagan to ensure that biomedical research remain a national priority and find ways to increase, not cut, funding for our nation’s top research enterprises.

Amir H. Rezvani, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Psychology and Neuroscience
Duke University Medical Center
Durham

--------------

Your fact-checking about Mitt Romney’s claims about stagnation of our state’s unemployment rate was trapped in his false premise that unemployment here is caused only by President Obama’s national policies. On the contrary, thanks to this state’s Republican-led General Assembly, the rate would have been much worse without Obama’s economic stimulus.

The reason employment has not rebounded as quickly here as in other states was the Republican takeover of our statehouse nearly two years ago. The new Republican majority has dismantled, brick by brick, the programs, policies and expenditures that once made us a job-creating powerhouse. Every benefit gained by aggressive job-creation programs of the past – including job training, community college programs, excellent education from early childhood through post-graduate, good environmental stewardship, healthy children, great infrastructure and recreation, adherence to good science and a moderating approach to social issues – is being harmed by this group.

Without the money supplied by Obama’s economic stimulus, we would have been in an unemployment free fall.

Diana Evans Ricketts
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

Once again it is good to see that our elected officials have our best interests at heart (“Senate panel approves fracking plan,” April 19 news article). Led by Sen. Bob Rucho, a state Senate committee is doing their best to ram this through and the only information has come from the oil and gas company associations. I wonder if Rucho was on the recent junket paid for by the same oil and gas industry groups that clearly showed our legislators that there is no danger and everyone wins, especially them.

I will wholeheartedly support this bill if the following condition is included in any bill passed: All legislators who vote yes (and their families) will be required to drink one quart of water per week from any randomly selected well within a quarter-mile diameter of an active drilling sites. Also I would highly recommend they view the documentary “Gasland,” and read both the America’s Natural Gas Alliance rebuttal and the “Gasland” response to their claims of being pure as the driven snow. Can anybody remember Love Canal and the other toxic sites we the public inherited from corporations that took the money and ran?

Charles R. Schroeder
Cary
-------------------------------------------------------

In 2009, nearly a million North Carolinians benefited from the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is an essential policy because it makes the tax system fairer, offsetting sales and other taxes for lower income working families.
In North Carolina, a low-income household pays nearly 10 percent of its income in total state and local taxes, while those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution pay just 7 percent. For lower income households, that 3 percentage point margin can mean having to choose between food and gasoline to get to work.

To protect working families, we must protect and strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit. And to those who say we can’t afford the EITC, I would suggest state lawmakers fund it by closing the loophole that lets out-of-state corporations avoid paying income taxes on profits earned in North Carolina and by reinstating the personal income tax surcharge on millionaires.

Christina Stableford
Raleigh
----------------------------------------------

I was fortunate to be one of the 8,000 people in Carmichael Arena on April 24 to hear President Obama give such a heartfelt speech about student debt and what it means for young people to begin the world without the freedom we had back in the 1960s, when tuition was just $2,000 per year which, at the time, seemed like a lot.

Both my husband and I went through graduate school on National Defense Education Act fellowships because back then our country’s leaders understood that educating the next generation of leaders was in the best interest of the nation. It means a lot to have a president who understands this still. If only Congress would support what’s best for all of us instead of just a few of us.

I am proud to have a president whose values, understanding and heart all lead him to advocate for access for all of us. I think everyone there shared my feelings and left knowing that this country needs Obama for another four years – so he can continue to work hard for future generations of working Americans.

Sondra Stein
Durham
-----------------------------------------------------------------

North Carolina’s 541,927 small businesses represent the best of Americans’ entrepreneurial spirit to take charge of their own livelihood, promote healthy competition and provide goods and services to meet the marketplace's demand. However, Washington politics is threatening to hurt small businesses in favor of outrageous spending programs.

An example of this threat is the Health Insurance Tax (HIT). This tax, hidden within the health care reform bill, is set to take effect in 2014. The HIT seeks to collect $87 billion in the first decade and will reduce the annual take-home wages of the average small business employee by $500 every year. The bottom line is that the HIT will increase costs and demolish any confidence that small business owners have in economic recovery.

North Carolina small businesses are already struggling to stay afloat during these uncertain economic times; the last thing they need is another costly tax. Economic experts have warned Washington to repeal this tax before it goes into effect and slows our economic recovery. Small-business owners in Raleigh are calling on Washington to stop the tax before it has a devastating impact on the North Carolina small business community.

Gregg Thompson
N.C. state director, National Federation of Independent Business
Raleigh

-----------------------------------------------

Regarding “Senate panel OKs fracking plan”: This is a sad day in North Carolina. Fracking is an extreme way to get at natural gas, yet data show many problems. The chemically loaded water poisons nearby water tables, toxic chemicals from the blasted rock and gas leak into the air affecting children greatly, and there is a correlation with increased earthquakes. Yet setting that aside, fracking takes a huge amount of water that cannot go back into the drinking supply. Water is a dear commodity. We must move away today from fossil fuels and toward alternative energy and conservation.

Keith Wilson
Charlotte
-----------------------------------------------------------

The arrest of George Zimmerman is just the tip of the iceberg now endangering America. The real problem is not whether Zimmerman committed a racist act but involves attitudes, beliefs and laws that are dividing this nation and threatening to tear us asunder.

Politicians have proclaimed that everyone be allowed to carry a firearm to protect themselves and their communities. Others have stated that hard-earned tax dollars could be saved if police officers and their unions were replaced by well-armed volunteer militia units, and that if we rely only on the police we will end up living in a police state. Homeowners associations have sanctioned armed individuals to patrol their neighborhoods and maintain law and order. These individuals have had little or no training but are backed up by “Stand Your Ground” legislation. Law enforcement agencies have valiantly condemned these reckless approaches to safeguarding our communities.

I believe that untrained citizens carrying lethal weapons pose a more dangerous threat to our freedoms than anything else. I would rather trust my freedoms to professionally trained police officers than to armed civilians educated by their politicians, talk-radio jocks and out-of-the-mainstream “news” programs. Know your enemies.

Larry Bob Evans
Clayton

------------------------

According to your Feb. 18 article “Bottle ban helps boost recycling,” data showed there had been a 50 percent increase in recycled plastic bottles statewide since implementation of the program banning these bottles from landfills. After reading this article, I headed out for day two of a cleanup with three other members of the Fearrington Adopt-a-Highway team, heading south beyond our established two-mile area of 15/501. In addition to that two-day cleanup, our entire team was out Feb. 11 for our regular cleanup.

Sadly, we have seen no reduction in trash, including plastic bottles. Fearrington’s two-mile section looks fairly good only because we clean it monthly. Additionally, several of us do extra duty by cleaning north and south of our designated area. Our recent two-day cleanup south of Fearrington left us discouraged by the amount of garbage people toss from their vehicles.

In addition to asking people to stop littering, I urge more individuals and businesses along 15/501 from the Chapel Hill/Chatham line to Pittsboro to take pride in their road and establish Adopt-a-Highway teams. Go to the NCDOT website to find out more about the Adopt-a-Highway program and check out ncdot.gov/~littersweep to learn more about the Spring 2012 Litter Sweep Roadside Cleanup.

Ann E. Holloman
Pittsboro
----------------------------------------------------

Lately there have been a number of letters suggesting that people go from plastic to cloth bags. I certainly agree with the fact that we need to use less plastic but suggest that people use paper as well as cloth bags when shopping.

Paper bags make wonderful garbage bags. With a large clip, we attach a waterproof container, such as a milk carton or sour cream or cottage cheese container, to the side of the can within the paper bag. This can be used to hold wet garbage. When we empty the can, we detach the clip and let the container go into the bag.

This saves a lot of plastic from going into the land fill. If you fill up the wet garbage container, you can unclip it, make sure it is upright in the paper bag and clip on another container.

Peg Rees
Chapel Hill

-----------------------------------------------

Michael Jacobs’ Feb. 21 Point of View article (“Charting cities’ financial stewardship”) performs a great service. The average taxpayer cannot discern what he is paying versus what other people pay in different communities.

The problem is similar to health care. Without comparative information about cost, quality and alternatives, buyers (taxpayers or patients) are lost. There can be no effective marketplace and no justification to chose one supplier over another (stay in the same community or move) or to fire (turn out of office) government leaders.

A lack of information is a danger to democracy. Would it be possible to create a cost index for taxes paid for a family of two or four, living in a $300,000 house in every city, county and state that is in and surrounds North Carolina as a first step?

As a taxpayer, living amongst the high-taxed, high-priced water consuming citizens of Chapel Hill, I would pay for that service. Later, we can listen to the reasons for the disparity and let the people decide if it is all worth it. But it is going to be a hard sell to claim that Chapel Hill’s basic public services are almost 50 percent better than Cary’s and 70 percent better than Raleigh’s.

Jay Strong
Chapel Hill

Amendment One: Nearly 50 more letters

bwheeler — Fri, 04 May 2012 17:31:03 -0400

And, no, we aren't hiding the pro-amendment ones.

You can find more letters about Amendment One on tomorrow's Other Opinion page and in Sunday Forum this Sunday. Here are almost four dozen more.

------------------

Voters will soon decide whether to amend the state’s constitution to include a definition of marriage. However, your article on a Public Policy Poll released last week suggested over 37 percent of likely voters lacked complete understanding of the amendment or were unclear about what the amendment would do.

Voting on any issue without full understanding is problematic, but voting on a change in the North Carolina constitution subverts a fundamental appreciation and responsibility for democracy. One of the most important roles higher education plays is to encourage individuals to become fully informed on significant issues through deliberate and conscious exposure to multiple viewpoints. Meredith College demonstrated this commitment several weeks ago when our Center for Women in Ethics and Public Life organized and hosted an open, public forum with panelists representing all sides of the debate.

As educators, we teach that it is fundamental to good citizenship to be well educated on an issue before voting; thus, we strongly urge all citizens to investigate the amendment before casting a vote.

Jo Allen
President, Meredith College
Raleigh

------------------------

If ever there was an article that so totally failed in its primary argument, it was the April 28 pro-Amendment One Point of View article “Cement a foundation of the common good” by Rob Agnelli. The central theme is that marriage and the family is the foundation upon which society is built, and a change to the foundation of society will have lasting effects on society as a whole.

The problem with this line of thinking is that per Wikipedia the size of the U.S. LGBT community in 2011 was only 3.8 percent. Yet when we consider that the number of births to unwed mothers is approaching 40 percent and the marriage-divorce rate is approaching 50 percent, it is obvious that the tiny LGBT community cannot hurt a family and marriage foundation that is built on sand.

It is time we realize these illogical fear-mongering arguments for supporting Amendment One are wrong on any basis. All North Carolinians deserve to be treated equally and fairly. Vote no on Amendment One.

Ronald Corter
Zebulon

--------------------------------

In his May 1 Point of View article (“Keeping tradition safe”), Gerard Falzon poses this hypothetical: “If any of these doomsday scenarios [posed by opponents of Amendment One] are real, how is it that they are not manifest today, as the amendment only constitutionalizes the status quo?” To be clear, the proposed amendment does not constitutionalize the status quo.

N.C. General Statute 51-1.2 provides that “Marriages, whether created by common law, contracted, or performed outside of North Carolina, between individuals of the same gender are not valid in North Carolina.” On the other hand, the proposed amendment reads, in relevant part, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” The two sentences are different on their face.

The statute defines what constitutes a marriage. The proposed amendment seeks to define what constitutes a domestic legal union. It is this difference that has spurred the fears of, among many, many others, Gov. Beverly Perdue, U.S. Rep. David Price and U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan. Falzon claims to have read or viewed statements by these individuals, but has apparently failed to understand their message.

Luke Everett
Durham

---------------------------

Purpose of a Constitution: 1) Set up the structure and duties of government; 2) Restrict what the government cannot do to its citizens (spell out rights).
A constitution is not to tell citizens what they cannot do. Restricting gay marriage by legislation is one thing. Amending the state constitution to limit rights is a misuse of the constitution and a dangerous precedent.

Kathy Young
Holly Springs

--------------------------------

As the father of a gay son, I can relate to the beautifully written appeal by Jeffrey Pugh to consider the impact of Amendment One on all families with gay members (May 1 Point of View article). Having a gay child personalizes the debate in a way that abstract arguments about government control and the “moral decline” of society (as expressed by the other Point of View column by Gerard Falzon) can't.
It seems ironic that the same people who rail against the disintegration of families in our society support an amendment that effectively places an obstacle in the path of two individuals who wish to commit themselves to one another. Whether or not the amendment passes, our younger generation seems much more accepting of the marriage equality movement and for this reason it will, I believe, prevail in the long run. And when that happens, the sky will not fall. The people who believe that gay marriage rights will somehow threaten the sanctity of heterosexual marriage or damage the “fabric of society” need not worry. Trust me.

Stephen Norton
Cary

-------------------------------

Citizens of North Carolina are being asked to vote on a constitutional amendment proposing that marriage between one man and one woman be recognized as the only legal union. This amendment would have far-reaching impact, both for same sex couples and for all unmarried couples.

In fact, the amendment impacts basic protections for all unmarried couples, both same and opposite gender, and their children. It would threaten basic hospital visitation rights and the ability to make medical and financial decisions; invalidate trusts, wills and end-of-life directives, and undercut existing child custody and visitation rights that are designed to protect the best interests of North Carolina’s children. The American Medical Association adopted a policy last year stating that denying civil marriage based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and imposes harmful stigma on individuals and their families.

The amendment threatens domestic violence protections for all unmarried couples. Also, the amendment is bad for business, causing real harm to the ability of North Carolina to attract and support businesses in the state.

At a time when the federal government is recognizing the valor and worth of its gay military force, our General Assembly is seeking to undercut and discriminate against the same group that is laying lives on the line to protect us!

Linda McGowen
Emerald Isle

----------------
Many arguments have been made for and against the marriage protection amendment. However, there is only one good reason for this amendment to be defeated: Our state constitution should not be used to settle an issue of religion.

Bob Mulder
Raleigh

----------------------------

A few preachers whose opinions I’ve read in opposition to the marriage amendment state that it would potentially deny benefits to people for which they are “entitled.” This is where I see another distinction to be made in support of the marriage amendment – beyond biblical grounds.

Businesses in our country for many years provided benefits beyond the paycheck for the workers both single and married. During the good years of business growth in our country, employee loyalty grew and businesses thrived. From my perspective, it looks as though programs such as equal employment opportunity and entitlements being demanded of companies and in some cases ordered by governmental oversight have actually caused companies to give up on manufacturing in this country and take their production overseas.

Our society allows people the freedom to pick their life partners. I do not believe that our government or individuals should continue to demand that our businesses alter their rules and goodwill to provide benefits to those who would not otherwise be entitled. Perhaps passing the marriage amendment will help to clarify roles for government and business while giving incentive to companies to relocate in a more business-friendly North Carolina, which could lead to new jobs.

Kenneth Pledger
Rocky Mount

---------------------

State Rep. Paul Stam’s purported explanation of the marriage amendment (“Protecting marriage from attack in the courts,” May 2 letter) employs what seem to be normal obfuscatory methods to cloud issues and mislead the gullible. Same-sex marriage imposed? Marriage is not imposed in this country like perhaps it is in Pakistan or India. No one is forced to marry. Here we allow people to marry.

Stam doesn’t know what effect it will have on the economy, except that there will be litigation and lawyers will make money. His assertion that it won’t do anything to visitation rights of parents and kids is empty. He doesn’t know, no one knows. Courts will determine. He doesn’t mention inheritance, insurance, benefits transfers, partner medical rights, etc., where the real mischief is to be made if it will be.

I’m married 30 years. No one else’s personal arrangements have any effect on my marriage. It’s not like they’re partying all night or shooting guns off in their back yard and bothering me.

Weak arguments, Mr. Stam, say I. Try again.

Bob Reis
Raleigh

-------------

It's a sad day in North Carolina. Religious leaders advocate discrimination from the pulpit. Religion is argued as a case against civil rights. Our state and our constitution deserve better than this. So much for North Carolina as a growing, business friendly state. So much for promoting “the public good.”.
Jesus preached for all to love one another. Yet here are so-called Christians promoting bias against others.

North Carolina citizens, please keep individual civil rights in our state constitution. Please do not impose one group's opinion onto the civil rights of others. This is about a lifetime of peace and love together. For all.

M. L. Rhodes
Raleigh

-----------------

I gain nothing by disapproving of those who are unlike me, and I am not threatened by their existence. My marriage is not threatened or altered or endangered in any way by any other couple’s marriage or civil union, regardless of gender, and so does not require an amendment for its defense.

So why single out any group for inferior protection under the law? Why deny to others what we cherish so much for ourselves?

When I was born a half-century ago, it was OK to view minority persons as good or bad according to how like me they were. This bigotry was the prevalent attitude at the time, but most children and young adults I know today reject it. They will reverse this amendment, should it pass, within a generation as predicted by Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis. But in the meantime, we will punish people for simply being who they are.

By defeating this mean-spirited amendment we will show the nation that North Carolinians are not influenced by fear and division, that we reject the politics of bigotry, and embrace the world as it is, not as we once wished it would be. We don't have to wait for the next generation to do the right thing.

Warren Schroeder
Fuquay-Varina

------------------------

As I sit before my computer looking at early voting numbers and polling reports, hoping for glimmers of positive news, I realized that the conservative extremists in the legislature have already won rounds one and two. Round One was the vote in the legislature where a Cary senator cast the deciding vote that would put this constitutional amendment before the people for a popular vote. Round Two is under way now. The discomfort and anxiety we of the LGBT community feel as our neighbors, co-workers and family determine our fate. We as people and more specifically our relationships are on the ballot to be determined as valid or not.
Round Two is this period of time – while we work against this hateful piece of legislation – until the votes are counted next Tuesday. People we know and live/work among are looking away or saying they are still trying to decide how they will vote. The extremists are winning this round clearly.

Round Three is all about our validity as citizens – and rights and benefits that come from being citizens. That cannot be determined until the votes are counted. North Carolina, let’s win the last round!

Dave Parnell
Raleigh

----------------------

I was disappointed but not surprised when the N.C. Baptist State Convention endorsed the marriage amendment last fall. Since that time pro-amendment rallies have featured preachers ranting, yelling and spewing hateful rhetoric against gays and lesbians. Threats of fire and brimstone and warnings of Sodom and Gomorrah remain plentiful. During these rants the Bible is waved as if it were a club, ready to bash the faces of those who dare to oppose the amendment or support equal rights for all North Carolinians.

Are these people Baptists? Do they really consider themselves Christian? I grew up within the Southern Baptist tradition and earned a Master of Divinity degree from Southeastern Baptist Seminary. I was always taught the message of Jesus was one of compassion, inclusion and liberation from the harshness and rigidity of religious authoritarianism. The Gospels tell us that Jesus especially welcomed those who had been marginalized by the religious authorities of his day.

Those who favor the amendment have a right to their opinion but those who bludgeon others with hateful words and malicious threats in the name of religion personify Jesus’ term of condemnation, brood of vipers.

Leon Whitehead
Wake Forest

-----------------------------

The various forms of commentary on the proposed state constitutional amendment generally revolve around religious beliefs about marriage. In general, the arguments appear to relate to many people’s understanding and interpretation of Old Testament Jewish and New Testament Christian concerns about the "prohibition" of homosexual relationships.

All clearly are entitled to personal opinion; and indeed, free to maintain personal lifestyles that do no harm to others. However, using the body of public law to enforce religious convictions where the private behavior and lifestyles of others does not harm others, flies in the face of the very concepts of U.S. Constitutional traditions. Accordingly, I submit, that this proposed amendment violates the very traditions of our U.S. Constitution.

To explore this perspective, please consider the traditions and purposes for constitutional law as established by the Founders of our country and writers of the Constitution. The Founders used the Constitution to define both the structure and the basic responsibilities of government. Core elements of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, included – even emphasized – the protection of the rights of citizens as well as the protection of citizens against abridgement of their basic rights and freedoms by government and/or by those who would use personal belief or personal gain as an excuse to abridge the rights of others. From this perspective, the proposed North Carolina amendment flies in the face of these principles.

Consider that "marriage" – domestic unions of two people forming a permanent agreement to join together in a family unit – consists of up to two elements in our traditional society, only one being a legal, civil contract. So we see that traditional "marriage" must include: 1) A binding, legal recognition of the union of two people, to be recognized under the laws of the land. And it may include 2) A religious union – but only (and not always) when selected by the parties and based on personal religious beliefs and convictions.

I understand and respect the rights of all citizens to hold opinions about the nature of "proper religious unions," i.e. "marriage." However, I think there is a great problem (and "evil") in forcing the religious convictions of some – even if a majority – on many others, and making it a point of law. To do so is in conflict with the basic concepts of constitutional law as established and framed by the founders of this nation.

The Founders were extremely concerned about the inclination of some to mandate in law, adherence to specific religious beliefs. While many (but not all) of the Founders were religious men (and nominally or devoutly religious over a very broad spectrum of beliefs), they virtually were unanimous in expressing concern about any attempt of the government to make religious belief or participation in a religion a mandate of law. They saw the imposition of specific religious beliefs by government as an evil to be avoided at all cost.

Where the truth of these concerns can best be seen today is in Islamic nations that have mandated that the Sharia is the standard of law to which all must conform. As easily can be witnessed, this imposition of Islamic law results in greatly disadvantaging a large part of the population. Consider the impact of Islamic religious law on women's rights, the education of girls and women, and the (lack of) freedom of religion for those not of the Islamic faith.

So – let us maintain our personal religious beliefs about "proper marriage" but let us not promulgate law that places the religious convictions of some against the rights of those who believe differently. I will most certainly vote No and encourage all thinking citizens to do the same.

John Robinson
Raleigh

---------------------------------
According to Webster's dictionary, a domestic partnership may mean several things. For example, the local business involved in an international business agreement. I think an adoption agreement for a child might also fall under the broad wording of Amendment One. A divorce is also a domestic partnership agreement (or disagreement, as the case may be). I guess the author must be anti-business and anti-family as well as anti-gay. I'll be voting against Amendment One and against the legislators who wrote such a short-sited amendment and still call themselves lawyers.

Jack Penny
Raleigh

------------------
Several recent published letters to the N&O editor have suggested that God stands only on the side of those who support Amendment One. These letters are, of course, dismissive of the vast numbers of people across the state who oppose Amendment One for religious regions. While there are certainly numerous practical and humanitarian reasons to oppose the amendment, many religious people have also concluded that it is something their faith calls them to oppose because of the harmful effects on people's ability to care for their loved ones. Maybe someday we will all find out what the One True Religion is, but until that time, it would be helpful for the N&O editorial page to acknowledge the people of faith who oppose the amendment.

Michael Ling
Chapel Hill
-------------------------------------------------

The proposed amendment to the state constitution is nominally about defining marriage. I believe it is about severally other things. It is about expanding the role of government into controlling who can be a party to what contract. I find it odd that people in favor of limited government can be in favor of this amendment. It is about making government the enforcer to religious doctrine. Religions are free to say who they will marry, why do they need government to enforce their doctrine? And lastly it is about a callous political ploy to pander to voters

Jack Cole
Raleigh

----------------------
Amendment One is not just about gay marriage. It’s not even about bigotry and hatred. I have no qualms with anyone's religious or moral beliefs. You are entitled to those beliefs, that's your right as an American and as an individual. But I like to think of the government as an institution that is meant to protect our rights to life, liberty and property.

Gay marriage does not affect your right to your life, your liberty or your property. Gay marriage does not devalue the institution of marriage – if that was the real reason, divorce would be illegal. Gay marriage does NOT affect your marriage or your children. It may offend you, but it does not harm what goes on in your house – and there is no right to NOT be offended.

The biggest problem I have with this is that is strictly and blatantly an amendment solely based on a religious viewpoint. The problem with this is while it is YOUR religion you are pushing on others now, it could be that 20 years from now Jewish law will be enacted, or Islamic law, etc. If you wouldn't appreciate another religion enacting its principles on you, then you have no right to enact your religious principles on others. Government is not a place for religious doctrine, no matter what your belief.

Amendment One is used to deny rights to citizens. That is not the purpose of a Constitution. From a practical standpoint, it will cost the state millions in lawsuits. Children could lose their health coverage, women could lose legal protection from violence, straight unmarried couples could lose their protections under the law. I saw COULD because we don't know what will happen, but it is worth to put those people at risk when gay marriage is already illegal? Whether you are religious or not, liberal or conservative, it is not our place to enact our personally beliefs on others. And that's definitely not the government's job.

Matt Ramey
Raleigh

-------------------------------

In 2012, I celebrate two milestones – my 25th anniversary as a North Carolinian and the 20th anniversary of when I met my life partner – for better and for worse, in sickness and in health. Unfortunately, this year of celebration includes a real threat to my family, Amendment One.

The dictionary helped me understand what the amendment means by marriage being the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in the State. According to the dictionary, the amendment will limit which families (domestic unions) the state will consider significant and worthy of legal protection. On May 8, you will be doing more than voting to constitutionally limit which couples may be joined in civil (not religious) marriage. You will be making a statement about the validity of my family. You will be determining whether the state will recognize that

I am a mother. You will be deciding whether or not hospitals must grant me visitation rights should my partner or my children become sick or injured.
Since we are considering amending the constitution, please consider the definition of democracy the principle of equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment. I urge you to vote Against on May 8.

Connie Pearcy
Durham

-------------------------------

Regarding State House Majority Leader Paul Stam's letter on the proposed constitutional amendment published May 2, I find no relevance in the relationship he presents between the best and worst economically performing states and whether those states have constitutional bans on same sex marriages or allow them or civil unions.

To me, citing such statistics as reasoning for the amendment is nothing more than language to motivate those already supporting the ban on same sex marriage or encourage persons who prefer not to look into the issue in great detail to vote.
Stam chooses to ignore the changing morals of society. Gay and lesbian persons have been part of it for several hundred years. However, in the past 30 years or so society has become more open and accepting. As a Jew and member of Judea Reform Congregation in Durham whose board of trustees has publicly gone on record opposing the amendment, I sincerely believe all men and women are created in God's image as equals and deserve respect no matter what their sexual orientations may be.

Amendment supporters cite both old and new testament verses claiming God meant marriage to be only between a man and woman. I seriously doubt any person living has experienced an in person conversation with God and therefore knows what God may desire.

North Carolina faces many challenging and crucial decisions for the twenty-first century. Members of its General Assembly would be better advised to find helpful solutions to these challenges rather than spending energy trying to legislate morality. America tried this with a ban on alcohol during the last century only to have prohibition repealed by a constitutional amendment.

Mark G. Rodin
Durham

---------------------------

I congratulate the conservatives in the state House for getting Amendment One on the ballot. Not since the miscegenation laws of the 19th century has a marriage protection statute been so artfully promoted.

Under the amendment, two persons, of age and inclination, are forbidden to enter into the same type of civil contract that two other, different adults, can create as an ordinary agreement. By the amendment, only people who accept the religious concept of marriage can create a domestic partnership contract. Further, the eligibility of the partners is judged by the state only in terms of that religious concept.

Amendment One supporters empower the state to enforce a particular religious belief. A normal civil contract is not available to those who do not meet the religious criteria. But, Amendment One, which actualizes a fear and hatred of those who are different, is neither moral nor American. It is also profoundly un-Christian, a word I use for those who understand its true meaning. We can ask what other religious values will be promoted as justification for future unjust treatment of minority groups of all types. Doubtless, the proponents of the amendment already have some terrific plans for those situations.

Anne Corrigan
Chapel Hill

-------------------------

Let me get this straight – a handful of "same-sex" couples had the audacity to go to an Asheville courthouse last fall because egads! they want the government to recognize their love, commitment and civil rights in the same fashion as that of "different-sex" couples. I fear the Union will crumble!

Let's be honest – Amendment One is an attempt to codify discrimination. Plain and simple. You can dress it up however you want, but the bottom line is that Amendment One restricts the rights of North Carolina citizens who don't conform to the religious mores of a certain segment of the population. Never mind that neither do most of the rest of us, but I guess we should only care about certain Bible verses and not others.

And to House Majority Leader Paul Stam, your attempt to alleviate our fears around all of this in your recent letter to the editor was impressive! But maybe you could make better use of your influence by asking Thom Tillis to encourage his staffers to keep themselves under control. Seems to me that adultery destroyed more N.C. families this past week than did the prospect of same-sex marriage.

Stan Patterson
Raleigh

--------------------------------

Marriage is the pledge of lifelong love and devotion to someone you truly love, whoever it is. Today, homosexuals are not legally recognized as being married in North Carolina, meaning that if Amendment One passes, equal right to marriage will be harder than ever to accomplish. Do you realize that any unmarried person whose partner is in the hospital will not be able to visit him/her as immediate family? Partners – heterosexual or homosexual – who are unmarried have the right to share health insurance. This right will disappear if Amendment One is put into place. If a child is being raised by one adult and that adult loses his/her health care, then the child and the adult are put at risk.

Right now in North Carolina, unmarried people who subject their partner to domestic violence are breaking the law and will be punished severely if they are caught. Since there will be no legal union between any unmarried couples, victims of this abuse will not be protected as thoroughly as married couples would if Amendment One passes. Everyone who is against this amendment needs to vote whether you are 18 or 100. Vote no or forever wish you had.

Vanessa and Olivia Merritt
Raleigh

-------------------------

The North Carolina Psychoanalytic Society urges voting AGAINST Amendment One on May 8 – because we understand up-close, in our work talking deeply with good people about their lives, the devastating impact that it would have on the emotional well-being of so many loving, healthy and successful North Carolina families. Modern psychoanalytic research indicates that these families share the strengths and struggles of all families – and that they are doing quite well. Gender development can proceed healthily for children, intergenerational bonds can strengthen, family values and traditions can grow, love can mature – in equal measure with all families.

We hope every North Carolinian would imagine what it would be like for YOU if an essential part of who you are – your faith, your race, your family’s values – were publicly and officially declared wrong and illicit under our state constitution by a majority vote of fellow citizens and neighbors. What would you say to your children? What would it be like going back to your workplace, your children’s school, a neighborhood gathering or a courtroom seeking equal justice under the law? If we can understand and respect each other in that way, North Carolina will decisively defeat Amendment One.

Peter Z. Perault, M.D.
President, N.C. Psychoanalytic Society
Chapel Hill

--------------------

Our state motto, Esse Quam Videri, sets a high standard for North Carolinians, and I have always thought it was the perfect fit for our conservative-progressive state, but just putting the so-called Marriage Amendment on the ballot, much less approving it, casts doubt on our ability to continue bearing such a weighty charge. The phrase is taken from a longer sentence that translates, “Fewer possess virtue than those who wish us to believe that they possess it.” Regretfully, the virtue that the amendment's proponents want us to believe they possess is not a virtue but a fear.

That we already legislate discrimination that forces some people to seem married when they would like to be married is bad enough, but enshrining seeming rather than being goes against all that our motto says we are. This amendment endorses seeming. As a tenth-generation North Carolinian, I endorse being. Let the weak grow strong and the strong grow great, and let us remain a valley of humility, a valley of being rather than seeming.
Sarah Woodard David
Raleigh

---------------
Why do you insist on referring to Amendment One as the "Marriage Amendment?" The amendment prohibits marriage, not enhances it. You should call Amendment One the "Anti-Marriage Amendment."

Forrest Smith
Holly Springs
---------------------------------------------------------

This year is the first year of my life that I have not lived in any denial of my sexual orientation, nor have I attempted to hide it as a part of who I am. I was sitting in the General Assembly when this Amendment was debated and eventually passed to be put on the ballot before us on May 8. I remember feeling disrespected and degraded. My representatives stood on the floor of the House and argued that I am less than them because of my sexual orientation; they argued that I do not deserve the same rights that our government has granted them. Believe me, this was not a choice that I made. I would remember waking up one day and thinking, I’m gonna be gay. I spent years learning to accept myself as I am, as I believe I was made to be. I have been blessed with a loving and supportive family, group of friends, and church –all of whom accept me just as I am.

I had a long battle for self-acceptance. I suffered through depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder partly related to my battle with accepting the fact that I am gay. And, I know that there are young people in this state facing similar battles about who they are and what it will mean in their life to be gay. Amendment

One would send a message to gay youth that they are not deserving of the same rights that are granted to straight people in this state and nation. I am a human being and this state cannot steal my dignity. And as a human being, I know that I am deserving of the same rights as other human beings. Don't let our state stand for hate!

Despite how far we have come, I still find myself fighting for acceptance. We live in a society that deems homosexuality as less than. We live in a nation that sees hate crimes toward homosexual individuals. We live in a state that does not grant homosexuals the right to marry the man or woman that they love. We live in a world where young people who are homosexual find suicide to be the only escape from daily torment and bullying. We live in a world where it is a crime simply to be gay in some countries. And in extreme situations, countries are executing citizens for being homosexual.

Being gay in North Carolina, this country and this world is not always easy.

Sometimes we tend to think only of the bad things happening, but if you open your eyes and look around you see people spreading love and igniting hope. The fight against Amendment One has brought so many unique people together; people who began sharing stories, expressing how they feel, and speaking out against something that is just plain wrong.

There is nothing positive about Amendment One. Gay marriage is already illegal in the state of North Carolina. Amendment One does far more than write discrimination in to the state’s constitution; it will also:

Threaten to take away health care coverage of children with unmarried parents (gay or straight);

Not allow North Carolina to recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships (gay or straight), threatening many legal protections for these couples;

Make domestic violence protections only apply to married couples;

Threaten unmarried seniors pensions, health care, and Social Security.

Aside from standing for the rights of each of these groups, each and every one of you that has the privilege of voting (sadly, I do not) has a chance to send a message of hope to gay and lesbian youth throughout this state and this nation. Each and every one of you has a chance to stand for love over hate. Each and every one of you has a chance to take a stand for justice! I ask that you go out and VOTE AGAINST this dreadful amendment. And after you have cast your ballot, call 10 friends and tell them to do the same. We can defeat this amendment!
Seth Keel
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------

First of all let me state unequivocally that I am married to a man and personally very happy about that. However, that is not the point of this whole constitutional amendment issue.

The United States was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. Many of our country's founders fled Europe because of religious persecution.
If there is a possibility that it will negatively effect one partnership or one child then it is unkind and selfish to vote for such legislation. Doesn’t that belong in one’s personal beliefs or one’s church?

Many people in the U.S. today want government out of as many areas as possible but want to tell people what is acceptable in their own personal relationships. Isn’t this a double standard?

Amendment One, regarding the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, does not belong in a our state constitution.

Jill Grosman
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment One does not go far enough.

If the citizens of North Carolina vote to alter the sacred document which is our constitution, then it should cover ALL the bases.

Genetics has proven that when two people with blue eyes marry and yes, even when that is one man and one woman, then their children will have blue eyes. That’s science! Look around you. You see more people with brown eyes than blue eyes.

Adam and Eve came from the area we now call the Mideast, where people have dark hair and brown eyes. People born with blue eyes are an aberration, and not part of God’s plan. So Amendment One should outlaw the marriage of blue-eyed people. Now, I want to be fair and reasonable about this. So if a blue-eye wants to marry a brown-eye, that’s OK. It’s just that two blue-eyes should not be allowed to marry.

And what about left-handed people?

America is a right-handed society. We invented the automobile, and we drive on the right side of the road. Guitars are built to be played right-handed. The Apostles’ Creed states that Jesus rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. So God intended us to be right-handed.
In Latin, the words for right and left are dexter and sinister. Someone who is dexterous is skillful with his right hand. Someone who is sinister is evil and threatening. So Amendment One should also state that two people who are left-handed should not be allowed to marry.

Vote against Amendment One because it does not include all of the defective people of this state. Think about it. If the world had these restrictions in place a couple of generations ago, then we would not have had to endure people like Frank Sinatra and Paul Newman. Or Barack Obama and Paul McCartney.
And wouldn’t we be better off today?

Peyton Clark
Apex

-------------------------

On May 8, North Carolina voters will take to the polls to vote in the state’s primary. While an important slate of candidates for both parties will be on the ballot, a major focus has been on Amendment One to the state constitution. Proponents of Amendment One are seeking to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution in the hopes that activist judges sometime in the future will not alter the current state of marriage within the state. However, what most voters may not know is that Amendment One is one of the most extreme and ideologically driven ballot initiatives of all the gay marriage amendments to come before voters nationwide.

Let me be upfront. I'm an openly gay male who’s technically been out for 13 years. I'm also a politically oddity in that I'm likely the most conservative gay male you'll ever run across (and certainly that I've run across), a registered Republican and a dedicated opponent of President Obama and his policies. I am not a Log Cabin Republican as they are far to the left of my own political beliefs and I am not a gay rights activist of any kind. To the contrary, as a citizen of California I may well have been one of the only gay citizens of that state to vote FOR Proposition 8 which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So in other words, I feel I have some credibility in calling Amendment One extreme and speaking out against it.

Amendment One goes far, far beyond simply defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In fact it not only prohibits domestic partnerships, precludes civil unions and obstructs the rights of adoption, but it extends to areas such as prohibiting partners and cohabiting members of households from the right to appear at a deathbed of a loved one, make medical decisions or manage estates. It deprives individuals of the right to have the person he/she has entrusted to spend potentially a lifetime with designated with the Power of Attorney. In short it is a complete deprivation of rights for certain segments of society. Not since the end of Jim Crow laws has the state of North Carolina put into public policy a two-tiered individual rights system. It is wrong and it should not be allowed to be part of the state constitution.

Driving Amendment One is a blind faith that religious convictions should be enshrined in the state constitution. As a strict defender of religious rights and someone that typically believes Christianity in particular is under attack from certain politically motivated individuals and government entities, I am forced to point out how extreme this position actually is. We are a representative secular republic with a strong influence of religious convictions and morality that allows us to thrive as a free society. This amendment, however, suggests instead that we are a moralistic theocracy seeking to impose a blanket religious code on citizens and residents.

Do not allow this to happen in North Carolina! Vote no on Amendment One!

Gary A. Ceres
Winterville

---------------------------------------------------------

Why are we voting on anyone's marriage? Who has the moral high ground here? Maybe we should vote on all marriages. More than 30 percent of first marriages end in divorce and the second marriage divorce rate is even higher.

According to George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, "born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce." Other factors to consider in a vote are: intent to have children, age, debt, income, history of abusing their partner or their children, did their parent's divorce, educational level, alcohol or drug abuse, smoking, health, disability or child's disability, maturity, narcissism, anti-social behavior, history of infidelity, history of cohabitation, pregnancy or children prior to marriage, dependent personality, criminal history, religious compatibility, nationality and race. Should we have voted on your marriage?

Troy McLean
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

The term alternative lifestyle has been used a lot lately, and I have noticed that the various alternative lifestyles are not all treated the same.

Tobacco users for instance have a life expectancy of somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 years less than the average American. Tobacco products cannot be purchased by persons under a set age, cigarettes cannot be advertised on TV, people may not smoke in many public places and some people have even suggested that people not be allowed to smoke in their own homes.

Then there is alcohol. It is more dangerous than tobacco, there are age limits on its purchase, but it is still advertised on television and it is permissible to drink it in many public places. Thousands of innocent people die on our highways each year because of alcohol abuse.

Illegal drug use is the most dangerous of these three lifestyles, and it is obviously illegal.

The people in each of these groups need compassionate help to change. No one, I would hope, would say that any of these people cannot change and therefore we should accept their lifestyles as normal and even change laws to make it easier for them to practice their lifestyle.

There is another alternative lifestyle, which based on life expectancy statistics is possibly more dangerous than any of the first three I have mentioned. I would like to encourage the same compassionate response to the homosexual lifestyle. We need to be willing to help those who want to leave this lifestyle. But we also need to be willing to say we will not make it easier for people to live such a dangerous lifestyle. Selling marriage licenses to homosexuals will not make their lifestyle safer.

There is a lifestyle group whose life expectancy exceeds the average. It is one man one woman marriage. This lifestyle group should be encouraged.
Vote for one man-one woman marriage on May 8.

Randy Sieg
Fuquay-Varina

---------------------------------------------------------
Whatever happened to freedom and justice for all and all men are created equal? I think they should have added: that is, unless you are a homosexual. Many of these same issues have been addressed for generations, if not against homosexuals then against blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics, etc. I cannot believe politicians would put something that is clearly discriminatory on the ballot to be voted on. What happened to their responsibility to insure the rights are protected for all citizens? I have to wonder how the many people who have fought, or had a family member fight for freedom and equality, feel about this. It has got to be like a slap in the face!

I know people are stating their reasons for voting for the amendment are mainly for religious purposes. However, God knew we would all sin, which is why he gave his son so all could be saved. After all, he who is without sin should cast the first stone. God also said not to judge, and the greatest commandment is to love one another.

Furthermore, my God doesn’t make mistakes! You can’t tell me a person would choose to be gay and put themselves through all that ridicule and hate; it has to be something they are born with.

Discrimination, regardless of who or what it is directed at, is a form of hate. I believe endorsing hate is the worst thing a Christian can do. I hope everyone will vote AGAINST Amendment One and put a stop to discrimination of all types!

Denise Miller
Granite Quarry

-----------------------------

We should vote for gay marriage.

1) More people would move here, work, pay taxes and be less likely to have children who need to go to school (paying school taxes without any benefit to their family).

2) People who have been together for a long time and share property together should have the right to settle division of property if the relationship ends. They should be allowed to marry, so they can divorce. Maybe that sounds odd. Everyone reading this knows someone who has gone through a bitter divorce. What if that person did not even have the right to state his case in court?

3) Why are we denying anyone the freedom to practice their religion? Some churches (Episcopal) will marry homosexuals; this is not a new denomination created for this purpose. How can the government interfere with that? Polygamy is different, because the "extra" women may not have any rights to property and support of her children.

Alicia Nossov
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Mildred Loving, a woman of African and Native American descent, married Richard Perry Loving, a white man. They were married in Washington, D.C. and moved to Virginia where in 1958 inter-racial marriage was prohibited.
I thought laws of bigotry were long gone. But Amendment One asks us to make homosexual persons second-class citizens with diminished rights.
I thank God for the gift of love and I see God has also given that gift to homosexuals. Since the grace of being able to fall deeply in love is given by God to heterosexual and homosexual persons alike, I am not one to tell God, “No, you can't do that!" That is what Amendment One is trying to do.

Jesus tells us, “If you do it to the least of these you do it to me" (Matthew 25:40). I will not do to Jesus what we do in Amendment One to so many of our citizens. This amendment is a disgrace to the living God and reintroduces bigotry into our constitution. Intolerance or animosity toward members of a group does not belong in any state's constitution nor in the heart of any Christian.

John Thompson
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------
I know the vote on Amendment One is only a few days away and my words have very little chance of reaching anyone or changing anyone's mind, but I still felt compelled to write one last time. I have read the vast majority of letters to the editor supporting this amendment in the name of a Christian God. Of this I will say I was raised Christian, in a Quaker church every Sunday from birth until my rebellious teen years, and the one thing I took away from the experience was this: God is Love.

The "Marriage Amendment" blocks love and creates hatred and animosity between brothers (who the Bible states we should love as ourselves). The God I believe in rejoices when people come together in love and he weeps when we divide, separate and marginalize innocent people from our society who only wish to proclaim their love for one another.

Think, act, and live a life of love the way Jesus did and you will know which way to vote May 8.

Brandie Davis
Selma

---------------------------------------------------------
As a lifelong Catholic of 68 years, five of which were spent in a seminary, after listening carefully to the teachings of both the hierarchy and other members of the Catholic Church and studying the Bible at length, I have come to the conclusion that for me, voting for Amendment One would be a mortal sin. Likewise, I have determined that it would be seriously evil to contribute in any way to misguided efforts to discriminate against any of God’s children. For this reason, I am forced to divert that portion of my tithe that would have gone to the Bishops Annual Appeal to other charities that do not discriminate. I also cannot contribute to Bishop Burbidge’s new shrine of discrimination.

God tells each of us very clearly in the beginning of Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” God very deliberately created the great diversity we see in the billions of people in the world today. Denying a minority the right to love, family and full protection under the law just because God created them different from the majority is not only anti-American, it is also anti-Christian for those of us who are Christians.

Bill Irlbeck
Wake Forest

---------------------------------------------------------

I grew up a Christian, and still enjoy the tenets of Christianity. Love they neighbor etc. The main reason I stopped attending regular church was because people would use the Bible to affirm one thing, and take another verse to disprove that same thing.

I believe in marriage. I also believe in divorce. I consider marriage a legal contract, but I live with my wife because I love her. As far as I know, most Christian marriage vows include in sickness and health, and till death do us part. But the most important part of a Christian marriage vow is the phrase, “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” I challenge all of you who think the part about marriage being only between a man and a woman to uphold the vows you made when you were married. I suggest that divorce be illegal, because no matter what verse says it’s OK to divorce, the real crux is that you swore to your God that you would/will not forsake your husband/wife for any reason. If you want marriage to be a sacred thing, then let it be sacred and divorce should be banned.

Jarles Alberg
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

As the marriage amendment vote nears, one side cites legal and insurance concerns while the other cites religious mandates from the Bible, a writing authored some 1,500 years or so before man figured out the world wasn't flat. The Bible denounces premarital sex and divorce, yet both are commonly accepted and of course, legal. While it is everyone's undeniable right to believe as they wish, that right doesn't include imposing those beliefs on others. In an ironic and hypocritical twist, many who clamor for less government and regulation now want more of it. If the voting public lacks the clarity to make an unbiased decision perhaps our courts will.

Kenneth Elowitz
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

Amendment One to the state Constitution, banning same-sex marriage, has generated a myriad of arguments, both pro and con. I have some questions that have not, to my knowledge, been addressed by either side in this issue: if the state passes this amendment what is the impact on recognition of marriages in other states? If a same-sex couple married in a state that accepts such unions moves to North Carolina, is their union to be denied along with any contractual agreements such as family medical insurance, joint property and other elements of most marriages, be these unions same-sex or opposites? If same-sex unions are not recognized would the state then be obligated to deny all non-North Carolina marriages in order to be fair to all?

Baxter Hill
Wake Forest
---------------------------------------------------------

I’ve spent significant time and money fighting Amendment One. I’ll dance in the streets if it is defeated, but I won’t cry if it passes because, regardless, the future looks bright for same-sex couples. What does sadden me is the animosity, inflammatory rhetoric and hypocritical actions I’ve witnessed from both sides.

What weighs on me is the more than $3.2 million spent collectively on the amendment, money that could go to feeding hungry families or helping unemployed people find jobs. I know it doesn’t work that way, but I hope those of us who have donated to the cause will examine how much we give in other areas and keep spreading the wealth. Despite my dispiritedness and general Amendment One fatigue, I still believe it’s an important fight. Whatever the outcome of Amendment One, voters on the side of civil rights are the winners in my book.

Diane Daniel
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Constitutions were created to enumerate rights, not deny rights to citizens. The path North Carolina is choosing with putting Amendment One on the ballot is a bad direction. Whose rights will be up for a vote next?

Michael L. Monk
Raleigh

----------------

Rep. Paul Stam is telling me I can bring anybody I want into my house and share my health insurance – just not my partner and our children? How much more disrespect can he concoct?

Cathy Chandler
Durham

-------------------------

State Rep. Paul Stam (“Protecting marriage from attack in the courts,” May 2 letter) should take another look at what the proposed amendment does and doesn’t do. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the domestic violence, child custody and health care debates. It is unclear what this amendment would do and will remain so until the courts weigh in. Given the reasonable chance of adverse effects, why risk it?

North Carolina’s economic outlook notwithstanding, a number of small businesses have said the amendment will hinder their ability to recruit talented employees. In this economy, why risk it? What the amendment doesn’t do, however, is clear: it doesn’t protect traditional marriage. It doesn’t address divorce in our state – over 35,000 annually – nor does it deal with infidelity among spouses, lately a pervasive issue.

The real threat to marriage is the indifference some give to the commitment. Most importantly, though, this amendment is reactionary and doesn’t reflect the views of most North Carolinians. Polls show that a clear majority supports some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples, exactly what this amendment aims to prohibit. You see, although North Carolina is pro-marriage, it’s even more pro-family. But this amendment is distinctly anti-family, and I am voting against it.

Adam Lanier
Chapel Hill

------------------------------

Rob Agnelli’s foundational question from his April 28 Point of View article is a good one: What will be the effect on the common good if Amendment One passes? However, in attempting to answer that question Agnelli considers only an abstract world without gay people and so comes to the wrong conclusion.

A proper analysis of the common good requires looking at the world as it really is, including the existence of real families with unmarried same-sex parents in society. Agnelli plausibly writes, “Marriage binds parents and children together and this serves the common good.” But unfortunately Amendment One would prevent same-sex couples and their children from being legally bound together. Amendment One ties the hands of the legislature from enacting both same-sex marriage and civil union laws.

The extension of marriage or civil unions to same-sex couples would be a stabilizing force for society. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would reinforce an ancient institution which has become dilapidated in recent decades. Institutions, such as marriage, need to be periodically reformed in order to serve the same stabilizing function in a constantly changing society. The common good is served by the defeat of Amendment One.

Doug Merrill
Durham

---------------------

I have watched with dismay as Bishop Burbidge has wasted political capital supporting the marriage amendment, which is unclear, unnecessary, divisive and ultimately of no legal effect in the event that gay marriage is recognized as a federal constitutional right.

I was stunned to read in The N&O that the N.C. Roman Catholic dioceses have contributed $100,000 of actual capital to the pro-amendment campaign in a state where children are going to bed hungry and mentally ill persons are going untreated.

Constitutions, both state and federal, are intended to protect peoples’ rights – for example, the bishop’s right to practice his religion as he sees fit. Shouldn’t we think a little more critically about whether we need to amend them? Shame.

Mary Pollard
Raleigh

Amendment One: Carrot tops and Bible verses

bwheeler — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:58:56 -0400

Another dozen-plus letters about amending the N.C. constitution to define unions. Find others on tomorrow's Other Opinion page and in Sunday Forum.

I have an idea for religious fanatics of all stripes and those who believe governments should not mettle in civil rights but believe that same government can mettle in sexual rights. We should pass a law or an amendment forbidding red-haired people from marrying other red-haired people because that would surely produce more red-haired children and everyone knows that throughout history “reds” have been known to be violent, emotional, hot-tempered, crazy, mystical, and unclean – and Greek mythology claimed they turned into vampires when they died.

Our country cannot abide with such people – vote for the next whacked out amendment. Most intelligent people would say this is insane, but it must be remembered that fanatics and fundamentalists, regardless of religion, all want to tell everyone what to think and how to live.
Vote for freedom and sanity – vote 'no' on Amendment One.

Jim Nolan
Morehead City

---------------------------------

Riding through town on my bicycle, I saw a few lawn signs that read “vote for the marriage amendment.” Being one of those Northern transplants, I wondered, “damn, I thought marriage was already legal in North Carolina.” But heck, you never know. So I did a little research and found out that marriage is already legal in NC and the law states “only between a man and a woman.” Again! There is an EXISTING law stating that a legal marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. You know, like my marriage and probably yours.

So what’s this “marriage amendment” all about? It’s an amendment (law) of discrimination. It's an amendment to put the government in your home. Your bedroom (less government, they say - yeah, right). It's an amendment that will violate the rights of thousands of our citizens - men, women and children. It's a law that is not fair or necessary. It's a law for not marriage but against gay people (call it like it is) and their families, children included.

So what's next out of our state government? History is a great learning tool for many of us, but sadly some do not spend enough time learning from past 'amendment/laws and government policy and where one step of control leads to many others. It happens folks. Often.

Remember the Nazis? One of their first acts of hate, of their discrimination against those they thought below them and should not be protected by law, were signs that stated “no Jews are allowed here.” The rest is history.

Our state government is attempting to put up its own sign: No gays are welcomed here. So what's next, citizens? A law that allows only white, straight Christians over the age of 21 to marry? In a church chosen by the government. You think it can't happen? Think again. Read your history and then vote against amendment one.

Lou Price
New Bern

-------------

By the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy and the Rev. Lorraine Ljunggren

As longtime ministers, each of us places great significance in the family values that guide our lives and the way we lead our respective congregations in Louisiana and in North Carolina. But in North Carolina, family values are in danger.
If passed, Amendment One to the N.C. Constitution would define marriage as between a man and a woman. We view such legally codified discrimination as an affront to all people who recognize the inherent value in marriage as a means of legally recognizing the union of two people – regardless of the identity of the people.

In the United States, marriage is a legal right that should not just be available, but also legally ensured, to all citizens – whether they are involved in heterosexual or same-gender relationships. When an individual denies that right based on his or her religious values, he is violating the promise of religious freedom to all. A constitutional law limiting marriage – explicitly defining it in a way that only allows for some who wish to get married to be able to – puts at stake the religious liberty of individuals and faith communities.

If a given individual's religious beliefs teach him or her that marriage is only between a man and a woman – fine, that individual should live as his or her religion teaches.

Other states in our union have legalized marriage for all, and in the process, have never sought to dictate to religious communities which rites and blessings they can or should offer. Thank God, the United States is a democracy – founded upon inalienable democratic principles. No democracy should condone the limitation of anyone's rights, including those that would be affected by the proposed amendment.

It's an embarrassing injustice.

As Americans, we all – or, at least, we all should be entitled to share the same civil rights. Remember that what makes our country so rich is its diversity – people who can track their heritages to countries across the globe, the sanctity its historic roots place in pluralism, and the right to practice any religion or no religion – without fear of government-imposed restrictions.

We must encourage each other to celebrate the diverse nature of faith in this country that has thrived in great part because of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. To violate anyone's rights in the name of religion is to open the door to possible violations of everyone's rights in the name of religion.

In North Carolina, the promise of religious liberty lies in the hands of the voters. We hope they will make the decision at the polls that will reinforce everyone's right to practice his or her religion as he or she chooses, to choose not to practice any religion, and to know that the Constitution of the State of North Carolina will protect individuals and communities of faith.

In fact, we believe that, much to the chagrin of the naysayers out there, society is far from being in danger of harm from embracing religious liberty; the very opposite is the case. If North Carolina voters do not sanctify religious freedom by voting down Amendment One, the strength of religious freedom in all communities across the state will be weakened.

Most of us agree that families are stronger when there are two parents; couples do better when they can legally secure their relationship. Amendment One threatens both of those realities and ensures that same-gender couples will have no choice but to go to great lengths and expense to secure only a few of the many rights married persons take for granted such as fostering and adopting children and having access to healthcare coverage through one's spouse.

Our nation was founded upon freedoms of which religious freedom was first. Amendments like the one that voters are today considering in North Carolina gravely endanger that freedom as enshrined in our Constitution. Though we respect the right of each and every American to practice his or her religion as he or she sees fit, no particular religious theology should ever become policy for a non-sectarian government.

People of faith should not be attempting to use the machinery of government to deny legal rights to fellow citizens. The referendum in North Carolina is an opportunity to stop those who would infringe upon the rights of others, not a chance to impose their religious beliefs on others. If Amendment One does not pass, the people of North Carolina will make a clear statement that they value religious liberty and do not want anything marring it to become inked in their state's Constitution.

The question before us is not whether we are good Christians, good Jews, good Muslims or good persons of other faiths. The question before us is what sort of North Carolina – what sort of America – do we want for ourselves and those who come after us?

The Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is president of Interfaith Alliance, a national, non-partisan grassroots organization that celebrates religious freedom. He also serves as the Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana, and hosts the radio show, "State of Belief." The Rev. Lorraine Ljunggren is rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Raleigh and a member of the Interfaith Alliance.

---------------
Our polarized political world today has lost any sense of moderate, collaborative governance. Amendment One is an example. It's not about marriage or gays. It's about the majority suppressing a minority in blatant, religiously-driven warfare.
As a gay man in a 32-year relationship, I worry that history will repeat the 1920s collaboration of so-called Christians who discriminated against blacks, Jews and homosexuals, criminalizing and exterminating those less than desirable.

On May 8 we can decide whether our state will continue to be a progressive light in the South or will give in to prejudice and bigotry. Amendment One, by taking away rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution, establishes a secondary class of citizenry, reminiscent of Jim Crow. This amendment also deprives unmarried "straights" of many protections and benefits, deprives children of non-traditional relationships of basic health care, and adds challenges for the elderly living in "convenience" cohabitation.

Ninety-one percent of the 184,000 N.C. homes with unmarried partners that will be adversely hurt by Amendment One will be nongay, and all those affected will be left with no recourse by such a broad and indiscriminate law. Vote "Against."

Jonathan Whitney
Pittsboro

-------------------------
Momentum against Amendment One is growing, but 54 percent of North Carolinians still support the amendment. I can’t help but wonder who they are. All bigots and homophobic people? Unlikely (thankfully). More likely, they’re people who don’t understand the amendment or who have been swayed by misinformation by the white paper from the Campbell University law professors who tried to deny that harm would come from the amendment, a paper since refuted by law professors from 7 North Carolina schools; by clergy cherry-picking words from the Bible to suit their world views while conveniently ignoring parts that challenge it; by ads wrongly claiming that heterosexual marriage is under attack.

To all those who are undecided or considering voting for the amendment, I ask one question: Could you look a gay family member/friend/coworker/neighbor/stranger in the eye and say, I don’t think you are worthy of your full rights as a human and as a resident of the United States? Because that’s exactly what you say with a vote in favor of this amendment. Actually, let’s be clear, because we already have a law against gay marriage, with a vote for this amendment, you don’t just say that, you say it with an exclamation point. Vote against bigotry. Vote against Amendment One.

Theresa Dowell Blackinton
Durham

--------------------------
Recent letters and political ads (Tony Gurley’s being the newest) have stated "marriage is between one man and one woman." This statement is ostensibly based on the Bible. Biblical views, open to varying interpretations, have no business being enshrined in the state's Constitution, which must secure rights to all citizens, regardless of the religious beliefs.

Further, those who believe that the Bible restricts marriage to one man and one woman need to read their Bibles. Genesis states, without condemnation, that Lamech, Abraham and Esau each had two wives. That multiple wives were also common in the early years of the Christian church is clear when one reads (I Timothy 3) that in order to be qualified as a bishop or deacon, a man should be the "husband of one wife."

That this amendment is based on religious beliefs should be enough to reject it. We are all free to believe what we choose, but we should not have the right to impose our beliefs on others.

Geoffrey Simon
Raleigh

---------------------
Like many others, I’m concerned about the proposed amendment to the state constitution and wonder if it would indeed help to protect my marriage or would instead threaten it. I feel that my marriage is particularly vulnerable to the changes that seem to be in the air.

For one thing, I married a man who had been divorced. Since I know that some religions do not allow divorce, I worry that if laws are made on the basis of religious tradition, he could suddenly find himself to be a bigamist. What makes things more complicated is that when I married him, I was a widow, and while I know that the Judeo-Christian tradition allows widows to remarry, I also know that other religious traditions do not. If one of these religions were to become dominant in the state, Im sure that it would follow the example laid out by our current majority and impose its religious traditions on everybody.

For me, of course, this would be disastrous. I wonder if it might be best to leave religious beliefs out of the equation and instead promote inclusive laws that respect individual differences. This may seem extreme, but its worth a try.

Ruth Bardon
Durham

---------------------------------
There has been a lot of talk recently about an attempt to amend the North Carolina constitution. Much of this talk has centered on theology rather than secular concerns. In this vein, please allow me to quote what I believe to be the relevant portion of the appropriate sacred text: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Whether you like it or not, the United States is a constitutional democracy, founded on the basic principles enumerated in The Declaration of Independence and governed under a charter established by our Constitution. Those of us who still believe in these documents will vote against Amendment One.

Howard Lander
Durham

-----------------------------------
As a Christian man who is also a husband, a father and a soon-to-be seminary graduate, I am deeply concerned about North Carolina Amendment One. Insofar as the amendment states that, "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State," it threatens the freedom of those Christian churches who currently perform marriage ceremonies for lesbian, gay and queer couples.

Currently, the Affirming Pentecostal Church and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches declare same-sex marriages as blessed by God and useful for building up the body of Christ. Additionally, many large denominations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal Church of the USA, the Presbyterian Church USA have taken steps to bless same-sex unions. And this is to say nothing about the multitude of nondenominational churches who may already be performing gay marriage ceremonies.

In light of this broadand apparently widening Christian affirmation of gay marriage, it is startling to consider the possibility that many churches may soon find themselves in violation of the North Carolina state constitution. What will it mean for churches who marry same-sex partners to have those marriages declared void by the state? What will it mean for Christians who have already been joined in marriage by the church? Will it now be illegal to practice the Christian faith, and participate in the church's liturgies? That seems to be a direct consequence of Amendment One.

I urge all Christians who value their freedom to worship without government interference to vote against Amendment One on May 8. To those people who are attempting to oppress Christ's church through the power of state laws, I beg you to reconsider your efforts. In particular, I ask the North Carolina Values Coalition to cease its attack on same-sex Christian families; for an attack on one family is an attack on all families.

Finally, I am told that some self-identified Christian pastors also support Amendment One, but I have a very difficult time believing that! For how could any Christian pastor use the power of the state to oppress members of the very church that he (or she) was ordained to serve? In fact, how could any person who has been baptized into the body of Christ – in which all artificial divisions cease to exist – then support attempts to divide that same body? Nonetheless, if it is the case that some Christians back Amendment One, it goes without saying that such people should withdraw their support, and cease their "war on religion" immediately.

In the Peace of Christ,
Matthew Morin

----------------------------

Amendment One is terrible policy. Amendment Ones vague, untested language harms all unmarried couples in the state. There are many reasons to vote against this Amendment, and most of them have nothing to do with same-gender marriage (which is already prevented by two state statutes). If Amendment One passes

1) It will cause unmarried couples in several municipalities to lose health care and other domestic partner benefits.

2) It could weaken domestic violence protection for unmarried victims. In Ohio, where a similar amendment was passed, certain domestic violence convictions were overturned because domestic partnerships were not recognized as valid.

3) It could be bad for business and job growth. Bank of America executive Cathy Bessant calls Amendment One a direct challenge to our ability to compete nationally for jobs and economic growth. No North Carolina CEOs were willing to support this Amendment publicly for a WRAL documentary; several publicly oppose it.

An original Amendment One supporter, Rep.Jim Crawford, has said that even he will vote against it. At a recent debate, he said the Amendment does go too far.
It is a no-brainer: North Carolinians should band together to vote AGAINST Amendment One on May 8.

Anna Lineback
Apex

---------------------
Please go to the poles May 8 and vote "NO" to amend the NC Constitution, an amendment that if passed, would further codify the denial of rights for certain groups of North Carolina citizens.

Amendments to the Constitution, whether they be State or Federal, should be used only to expand or defend the rights of citizens, rather than to deny or restrict the rights of certain groups of citizens. The proponents of this amendment are attempting to create a second class of citizens, and they are trying to circumvent the founding principle of inalienable rights of all citizens that were established during the the Second Continental Congress on July 4th, 1776.

The Declaration of Independence, drafted by that Congress says it best: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness". In the Declaration, our wise forefathers didn't refer to "their Creator" as "their Conservative Christian Creator", but only as, "their Creator."

Regardless of how anyone feels on the issue of marriage or religion, we should all stand firm against any attempt to deny or restrict any of our rights by the state or federal government, especially when targeted against certain groups of people, even if against groups that we may not agree with, for whatever reason. The preserving of this founding principle is tantamount to protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I am puzzled by the fact that Christian conservatives, or Christian fundamentalists, seem so threatened by the gay and lesbian communities. What is so fragile in their own relationships with their Creator or God, or in their own relationships with their opposite sexed spouses, that they feel compelled to deny to others the same rights and benefits that a marriage compact between two people affords, and that they themselves enjoy? Isn't that starkly hypocritical, or do they simply consider themselves holier than the rest?

I am all for the uninhibited enjoyment and practice of everyones personal and/or religious beliefs, right up until the point that they feel the urge to impose those beliefs on others. Fortunately, freedom of religion, can only be construed as equal to, freedom from religion.

Please understand the issues regarding this amendment and vote "NO". If this amendment is passed, the sex police could come for you next!

Charlie Dasher
Highlands

-------------------------------------
Concerning the issue of faith and Amendment One, aka the Marriage Protection Amendment: What is true love between two people? True love is when two people value each other the same as they would themselves. They value each others needs, dreams, desires, spirits and souls on the same level. Neither is placed higher or lower than the other so that one is worshipped and the other is not. The body or outer shell, money, health, appearance, physiology, biology, social differences and countless other things that are superficial to God likewise mean nothing to two people truly love each other.

What is the true purpose of faith? It is to provide hope to people who are afraid, to bring comfort to them in times of need. It is to provide solace when people cannot understand why things happen the way they do. It is to inspire people to help others when needed, to recognize that everyone is important in the eyes of a higher power, and that we should also be to each other as well. And it helps us to realize that people should treat all people as they themselves would want to be treated. It is consistent with true love.

Unfortunately, faith is too often used to harm others, with trying to create policies and laws that cause injustice, hatred, destruction and death. Throughout history there are countless examples. The Salem witch trials, slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, persecution of the Mormons, persecution of Jews, the Spanish Inquisition, World War II (yes, see what Hitler stated in “Mein Kampf” about the Jews). Need I even mention 9/11 as well? Such is once again the case in North Carolina, my home state, with Amendment One.

I have yet to hear anyone inform the public as to who benefits if this amendment is passed. If the only relationship recognized by the state is man-woman marriage, what would be the status of any other family law in North Carolina? Would people be harmed? Something to think about. If a couple gets a divorce in one state, doesn’t it have to be honored in the other 49 states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution? By the same reasoning, since some other states have already approved same-sex marriage, do the supporters really have any reason to have faith that the amendment would not be challenged up to the Supreme Court, costing the state possibly millions of dollars? Money the state needs for much more useful purposes.

True faith tells us that harming others is wrong. This amendment harms people. True faith tells us that voting for the amendment is wrong and that we should vote against it on May 8.

Jimmy Gay
Jacksonville

-----------------------------------

First of all, I'd like to get some very important facts straight – it does not matter whether you are registered as a Democrat, Republican or Independent to vote on the Marriage Amendment. So make your wishes known - come out and vote against the amendment. Let me explain why. Once upon a time in the dark unenlightened past, African-Americans were slaves with no civil rights. Women were chattel with no civil rights. Mixed racial couples could not marry.

Gays could not openly serve in the military, and received dishonorable discharges if their homosexuality were revealed, no matter their years of service or what their rank. No veterans benefits for them, even if they wore purple hearts! Then there came 'Don't ask, Don't tell." Let's not even go there. Now, finally, gays may openly serve in the military. Now all citizens have equal rights – except for homosexuals.
We are all supposed to have equal rights under the law. The civil rights of African-Americans, women and other minority citizens have been recognized. It's only a matter of time before gays have all of their civil rights too. Many other states allow homosexuals to marry legally and receive all of the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples. More are considering the issue. We should be. But North Carolina is attempting to make it harder. Why are we so behind the times?

This is not a religious issue. Remember that we have "separation of church and state" in our country. The main argument for those who urge you to vote for the amendment is that they believe that the institution of marriage is for the procreation of children and their protection and care as they are raised. What about heterosexual couples beyond child-bearing age or those who are infertile? How about to couples who choose not to have children? Would you pass laws to prevent them from marrying?

Homosexuals can and do adopt children. Children raised in a same-sex marriage are not likely to "become" homosexual. Homosexuality is not learned, or chosen. It is not a "lifestyle.” Homosexuals are born as homosexuals. That is now an agreed upon fact.Our daughter got married two weeks ago. It is a same-sex marriage. It occurred in an enlightened state where same-sex marriage is legal. These young women realize that their marriage will not be recognized in North Carolina, but they wished to be married by a minister and to pledge their commitment to each other before witnesses. The wedding was attended by 50 relatives and friends from eight different states. It was a joyous occasion.

Both young women are in their late 30's and well respected in their professions. They are at the peak of their earning years and their financial and professional contributions to North Carolina are tremendous. They pay state sales and income taxes. They contribute to the North Carolina economy. If they get tired of waiting for North Carolina to grant them their constitional and First Amendment rights and move to a state that does recognize these rights, their the financial and professional contributions will be lost.

Finally, imagine this scenario: A critically injured person lies a coma in a hospital bed and only a major operation can save her (or him). The only legal next-of-kin are unreachable. Do you really believe he (or she) should be allowed to die because the life-long same-sex partner at her bedside is not allowed to give consent for the operation because she is not her legal next of kin? Are you heartless enough to think this if fair? I urge you to think long and hard about the implications of this amendment. It will cause tremendous fallout should it be approved. There will be many court battles and legal expenses for our state, partially paid for with your taxpayer money. And in the long run, discrimination against homosexual couples will legally cease. They will ultimately be granted their full civil and constitutional rights. It took far too long for discrimination against African-Americans, women and other minorities to legally end. But it did happen. Let's not let homosexual discrimination continue in North Carolina. Vote against the Amendment One, the "Defense of Marriage Amendment," at the primary election on May 8th. Let your voice for equality be heard!

Jan Corsello
Pine Knoll Shores
------------------------------------------

I understand and respect the rights of all citizens to hold opinions about the nature of "proper religious unions," i.e. "marriage." However, I think there is a great problem (and "evil") in forcing the religious convictions of some – even if a majority -- on many others, and making it a point of law. To do so is in conflict with the basic concepts of constitutional law as established and framed by the founders of this nation.

so – let us maintain our personal religious beliefs about "proper marriage" but let us not promulgate law that places the religious convictions of some against the rights of those who believe differently. I will most certainly vote No and encourage all thinking citizens to do the same.

John Robinson
"Conservative" Republican
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------
Those pushing Amendment 1 often cite the Bible, but the Bible isn’t straight unless you twist it.

G-d calls for us to care for those we regard as strangers, as other, in the stories of Sarah and the angels, Jonah, and Sodom. G-d disguises angels, sending them to test whether we will care for or exploit them.

The sin of Sodom was the mob’s desire to brutally dominate people they saw as marginal and thought could be violated without consequence.

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. Ezekiel 16:49-50 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. It will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matthew 10:14-15
Unless you read the Bible through a lens of prejudice and discrimination, there is no support for Amendment 1 in it.

Will we care for the strangers in our midst, or use the state constitution to stigmatize certain people as second class citizens? Choose caring. Vote against Amendment 1.

Sherri Zann Rosenthal
Durham

Amendment One: 'Buggery,' hate groups and justice

bwheeler — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:22:17 -0400

Here are more than a dozen more letters, many in reponse to Peter Sprigg's April 17 letter 'Marriage protection,' about the proposed amendment to the N.C. Constitution on marriage and civil unions:

I applaud Michael Weddington (4/12) and Albert Kurtz (4/12) for exercising their constitutional right to free speech in placing signs acknowledging their stance on the upcoming N.C. Constitutional Amendment. As they illustrate our constitution (federal or state) and the rights that they grant are what makes us unique as a country. When these rights are trampled upon, we are upset. It is important.

That is why it is essential that we understand the wording and how the amendment would harm hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians. Weddington states in his letter “I have no problem with those who choose to enter into non-traditional marital arrangements having access to benefits available to married men and women, but to me that is an issue for another time.” Unfortunately, Weddington has the wrong sign in his yard, because the discussion he wants to put off for another time is now.

The sign in support of the amendment means that he supports an amendment to the State Constitution that would outlaw gay marriage and civil unions and dissolve all domestic partner benefits existing in several localities. This would remove benefits from families (yes, children) that have received them for years and depend on them.

Gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina and has been for 15 years! No one is talking about bringing it to North Carolina. I do not blame Weddington for his misinformation; some in the broadcast media have continually called this amendment “the marriage amendment” or “amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman.” We expect our media to be informed and not broadcast bad information.

This amendment is a harmful piece of legislation worded to cause confusion. Please take time to read the amendment in full - the part that will appear on the ballot and the part that the people will not be privy to on Election Day.

Dave Parnell
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council claims that governments recognize marriage because society receives benefits from couples that procreate naturally. If we follow this argument, marriage should be between only one fertile man and one fertile woman who produce and raise children. To ensure that these conditions are met, perhaps marriages should only be recognized after the ability to procreate and raise children has been demonstrated. No, that would lead to children being raised out of wedlock, something I’m sure the Family Research Council wouldn't like.

The state doesn't want to get into the business of verifying fertility as a condition of marriage, so let's expand the definition to include couples that might procreate. The benefits of marriage can then be extended to infertile couples, though this also creates a loophole for those who choose not to procreate (another alarming threat to traditional marriage). What about couples that are beyond child-bearing age?

Another exception! As long as they're heterosexual, that is. Or at least of opposite sexes( see above, re: state verification). Any other arrangement might make Sprigg uncomfortable, and his ability to live in a safe little world where everyone subscribes to the same beliefs is obviously best achieved through an amendment to our Constitution.

Jeff Sekelsky
Chapel Hill
--------------------

In response to the recent letter from Peter Sprigg stating that marriage is for heterosexual procreation: I am happily married and we have no plans on having children. Ever. This constant reliance on using children-centric ideology to back your weak argument against same-sex marriage is, well, lame. Some of us don't want to add to our already overpopulated Earth, or some of us aren't able to have children. And our marriage is acknowledged by you and our government, simply because we fit your narrow view of what is "proper.”

I am voting no on amendment one because it is only moral to do so.

Tiffany Bair Gillooly
Cary

-------------------------------

The purpose of a Constitution is to spell out the structure and duties of government and to guarantee citizens' rights (what the government cannot do to them). It is not to tell citizens what they cannot do. The anti-gay-marriage proposed amendment is an outrageous misuse of the Constitution.

Kathy Young
Holly Springs

---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the letter “Protect marriage” by Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council:

What voters need to know in order to evaluate the claims made by Sprigg is that in 2011 the Southern Poverty Law Center officially designated his Family Research Council as a hate group. And it’s important to note that this designation wasn’t made because of its opposition to gay rights or same-sex marriage. “Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups," the SPLC report said.

The SPLC's criteria for listing organizations was "generally... based on their propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities and repeated, groundless name-calling."
In making its case against the Family Research Council, the SPLC cites the work and comments of several people associated with the influential conservative group.

According to the report, Sprigg, a senior research fellow, told MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior." The report also alleges Sprigg opposed allowing gays to openly serve in the military because it would "lead to an increase in gay-on-straight sexual assaults."

In his letter Sprigg continues the council’s practice of spreading misinformation, not the least of which is his claim that the amendment explicitly permits private contractual arrangements to handle such issues as medical decisions, inheritance etc. The amendment will not include the language protecting these private arrangements he refers to on the ballot and the language will therefore not be voted on by the people. It will be up to judges and the courts to decide whether that language, not voted on, will be included in the constitution.

Further, by only addressing private arrangements, Sprigg ignores the fact that governmental entities that currently provide domestic partnership benefits to the partners and children of their employees will be prohibited from doing so if the amendment passes. This will negatively affect both opposite sex and same-sex couples and their children.

There are over 220,000 unmarried couples in NC. Over 89,000 of these couples have children. The vast majority of these couples are opposite -sex couples, not gay. This is real harm to real families. There is nothing hypothetical about it.

Tim Niles
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The Raleigh Monthly Meeting of Friends (Quakers), as a community of faith concerned with the welfare of our families and children, wishes to express opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment concerning domestic unions to be voted on May 8.

As stated in the minute approved by Raleigh Friends, the actual and potential harm, in the form of enhanced stigmatization, economic hardship and emotional vulnerability to families and children far outweighs any conceivable benefit to be gained by our state by this misguided action. Our state constitution should defend the rights of every citizen and not be used to limit the freedom to pursue a healthy, family-centered life.

Amendment One threatens real families and real children with whom we are acquainted. It cannot be in the best interest of North Carolina citizens to deny legal protections to certain families, to certain children, in the name of protecting the institution of marriage.

We of the Raleigh Friends Meeting find Amendment One ill-conceived and we are against it becoming a part of the North Carolina state constitution.

Virginia Emigh
Co-Clerk, Raleigh Monthly Meeting of Friends
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Peter Sprigg’s letter shows how weak the case for Amendment One is. Sprigg’s justification boils down to two points: society gives exclusive benefits to heterosexual marriage because it promotes natural procreation and provides a mother and a father for resulting children.

First, I would ask Sprigg what it is about adoption and surrogacy that he thinks is unnatural. Are adoptive parents less worthy than those who raise their biological children? Are opposite-sex couples that need medical help through in-vitro fertilization also unfit for the benefits society confers on marriage?

Second, I would ask Sprigg what makes a mother and a father inherently better than two loving mothers or two loving fathers. This is a consistent talking point for proponents of limiting marriage rights, but study after study has shown that children of gay parents do not suffer any negative consequences from their parents sexual orientations.

Finally, Sprigg incorrectly denies the broad impact of Amendment One, which will ban all civil unions and domestic partnerships, will strip unmarried municipal employees of benefits, will hurt North Carolinas economy, and could jeopardize application of domestic violence laws. How many people must be thrown under the bus to "protect" Sprigg’s narrow conception of marriage?

Stephen Rawson
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Some North Carolinians believe strongly that marriage should be allowed only for heterosexual couples. Others believe in equal rights for all the people of our state. The truth of the matter is that we already have a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman in our state. Same-sex couples cannot get married in North Carolina.

Already scarce state resources have been used to bring Amendment One to the voters. Money that could have been used to support research for MS or cancer, or any number of important nonprofit causes in our community has been redirected by people on both sides of the argument to give voice to their positions. If this amendment passes, we will spend taxpayer money defending it in the courts for the next 20 years. This is unnecessary and irresponsible legislation that will drain state funds and hurt all North Carolinians.

Serena Buckner
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

The constitutional amendment being voted on May 8 (and early voting until then) is not about gay marriage. North Carolina already prohibits gay marriage. A vote against the amendment will not allow gay marriage. It is unlikely the statute preventing gay marriage will be overturned soon. There are a variety of nongay people, many of them children, who will be harmed, and many more who could be harmed depending on how the courts interpret the implementation of this amendment, if it passes.

A federal or state constitution is not meant to "institutionalize" discrimination against anyone - one of the significant purposes is to protect rights.
This constitutional amendment is mean-spirited and harmful. Vote against the amendment.

Margie Sved, M.D.
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

A recent letter by Sharon Ryan praised Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, as a courageous person of integrity for opposing Amendment 1, which seeks to enshrine marriage as only between a man and woman. Rogers likens this to Jim Crow laws.

Especially African-Americans should find this objectionable, as discrimination based on race is not the same as vulgarizing the Holy Sacrament of Marriage by arguing that any two people regardless of gender can marry.

Rogers must know that buggery and sodomy are not civil rights; these are deviant sexual practices going against the grain of centuries of tradition, morality and our American values. Buggery and sodomy were in the same category of other sexual perversions including incest, pedophilia and bestiality.

Rather than listening to Rogers, I am more inclined to take heed of what the honorable Pope John Paul says in Memory and Identity: "It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man.”

Jay Bharrat
Clayton

--------------------------------

Amendment One isn't about protecting marriage. We already have laws on the books to do that. It is about denying civil rights to a group of people labeled “sinners” by some. But if we are going to deny civil rights to sinful people, is that intended to include all sinners or only some sinners? If the latter, who gets to choose which ones? If our concern is really the protection of marriage, perhaps we should consider such things as extramarital affairs, domestic violence and excessive use of alcohol. These behaviors clearly endanger marriage. Do we want to deny civil rights to the perpetrators of these sins? If marriage is between one man and one woman, should we deny civil rights to all who divorce and remarry?

There was a time when we denied civil rights based on the color of one's skin. This was finally overturned, not because that was what the majority wanted at the time, but because it was the right thing to do. In this case, the right thing to do is to honor the US Constitution's promise of liberty and justice for all.

Sue Crook
Chapel Hill
---------------------------------------------------------

On the May 8 amendment
I am going to vote no.
Its creating confusion
And its mostly for show.

Why should we be voting?
There’s already a law.
And our state’s Constitution
Has no obvious flaw.

It’s because some proponents
Know their views wont last long,
And a new generation
Will fix what they do wrong.

So they’re having us vote now
To achieve their true goal:
It’s to freeze the law solid
While they still have control.

Voting’s causing great heartache --
Turning friend into foe.
On the marriage amendment
I hope you’ll vote no.

Pat Oglesby
Chapel Hill

Hookers and editorial cartoon humor

bwheeler — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:21:48 -0400

The situation with the U.S. Secret Service members' hiring prostitutes in Colombia provided fodder for McClatchy editorial cartoonists this week:

Ex-senator's refrain: Marriage amendment hits sour note

steveford — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:03:54 -0400

Charlie Albertson was a familiar figure in the General Assembly. He served for 22 years, mostly in the Senate, until he decided not to run again in 2010. The one-time farmer hails from Beulaville, down in Duplin County. He's country in more ways than one.

Albertson's main claim to fame must be that he's an accomplished country singer-songwriter. The N&O's Jack Bernhardt, in a 2010 review of a collection of Albertson's work, had this to say: "With songs centered on down-home values of marriage, family, fidelity and faith, our singing senator lets us know that, whatever else he may be, Charlie Albertson is one of us."

It turns out that when Albertson applied his down-home values to the question of whether North Carolina needs a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, this was one Eastern North Carolina, in-touch-with-the-grass-roots Democratic politician whose answer was "Nope." Here are his thoughts, which he recently shared:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Buckminster Fuller, an architect, author and futurist once said, “It is not for me to change you. The question is, how can I be of service to you without diminishing your degrees of freedom?

Those are words to live by, particularly today, yet I’m afraid some of my friends in the Legislature, those charged with upholding the very freedoms we hold dear, have worked to diminish them by proposing a Constitutional amendment frequently referred to as the marriage amendment.

This amendment will be on voters’ ballots May 8 and I believe passing it would deny some of our friends and neighbors their civil liberties.

Proponents would have you believe it’s all about same-sex marriage, but the amendment touches on far more.

In my opinion, we should not attempt to amend our state’s Constitution unless there’s a compelling reason to do so. The proposed marriage amendment in no way meets that test.

Our current law, which was enacted 15 years ago, says in North Carolina marriage is between a man and a woman, and we don’t accept same-sex marriages from other states. The law has proven itself effective and, yes, it has been perfect.

So why the need for an amendment?

Advocating for this amendment at a time when we need to be working together to create jobs and meet the many challenges facing our nation seems out of order. It seems a little kindness and compassion toward those we are afraid of or don’t understand might actually benefit all of us.

There are other people to consider and this amendment doesn’t.

The proposed law would prevent civil unions and/or domestic partnerships. So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness … at least for some.

At a time when our nation seems to be moving in the opposite direction, overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” some states legalizing same-sex marriages, some churches ordaining gay ministers and people showing increasing support for these initiatives, it seems we are doing an about-face. There are those that simply aren’t satisfied with a perfectly good law that protects the sanctity of marriage. They want to march this state backward, not forward.

While I respect and appreciate those in the faith community who don’t support same-sex marriage, I don’t understand the seeming lack of compassion for those who are different.

We should accept people as they are rather than judge them for who they aren’t.

Through a friend, I recently learned I’m in a minority. I throw a ball with my right hand but bat left-handed. While this is strange to some, it’s always been natural for me. I was born that way; I’m different. The truth is, we are all different.

If we only interact with people who are like us, we will find that life is pretty lonely.

One of my best Republican friends told me a compelling story about Alan Turing. It is a story that changed me forever

I encourage you to Google his name and study his life story. But briefly, Turing was an English mathematician, logician and computer scientist who was highly influential in the development of computer science.

More important still, Turing, during World War II, was instrumental in helping break many German codes and shortened the war, saving many, many lives.

Turing, however, was gay, and it eventually led to his criminal prosecution and the forced treatment with female hormones as an alternative to prison. Humiliated and judged by his peers, this brilliant man killed himself.

A lack of compassion snuffed out a brilliant man’s life before he was 42. Imagine what he might have been able to do for humankind had he not been judged so harshly, had people shown him the same compassion we seek from others?

Let us also remember, we are all Americans first, a people of many faiths, some of no faith at all, yet we are all born equal under the law.

And no one should judge another human being. We simply aren’t qualified.

One might think that members of the faith community would be a facilitator to bring people together rather than than the hammer that drives us apart.

To many, including myself, the marriage amendment is like that hammer.

We shouldn’t want to change people and we certainly shouldn’t diminish their freedoms. We would not want someone to do that to us because of who we are, now would we?

I cherish my faith and respect the faith of others, but I hope we would never use our faith to discriminate against another human being.

I believe the marriage amendment does that.

--- Charlie Albertson

Amendment: And the opposition continues

bwheeler — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:20:46 -0400

Here's another batch of letters about Amendment One. Find others on tomorrow’s Other Opinion page and in Sunday Forum.

Michael Weddington wrote that he supports the marriage amendment. Then he goes on to write "I have no problem with those who choose to enter into nontraditional marital arrangements having access to benefits available to married men and women, but to me that is an issue for another time."

Well, I have news for Michael. For gays and lesbians and all others who support equal legal rights for ALL our citizens (that would be my crowd), that is not "an issue for another time." It is an issue for all time, including the present time.
I cannot for the life of me understand why it is anybody's business who someone else (especially some stranger on the street) marries. Or why they care. These folks need to learn the meaning of "equality" and how to apply it fairly.

There was a letter regarding sign destruction on both sides of the issue. These people should read the constitution and pay special attention to the guarantee of free speech for ALL citizens, not just those who agree with them. We need a lot more tolerance in this country, always have, maybe always will. Sadly so.

William R Goldston, M.D.
Raleigh

-------------------------

To all those who use the Bible to support Amendment One, I hope the following points make it more understandable why some of us believe so strongly that religion should not be used to justify laws.

The online Skeptics Annotated Bible lists over 460 contradictions in the Old and New Testaments. Some may be considered minor, some can be explained away, but can all 460 be reconciled? All it takes is one contradiction to reveal the fallacies of reading the Bible literally and of considering its authors divineor divinely inspired.

How can an infallible God make one erroror several hundred of them?
The contradiction that my thoughts keep coming back to is not one of the most glaring ones, like the different number of animals (two or seven) of each kind brought onto the ark or the differing versions of Eve’s creation. The most powerful contradiction to me is over an intimate and human moment.

In Mark and Matthew, both of the thieves being crucified with Jesus revile him. In Luke, one of the thieves praises Jesus and scolds the other. Big deal – that’s just one tiny passage, I can hear some saying. But let’s assume for a second that the thieves were real men nailed up on real crosses. In Luke, the reverential thief receives Jesus promise that today shalt thou be with me in paradise. In Mark and Matthew, this thief has nothing but vile words for Jesus. Which Gospel is right?

The question may matter little to us now, but in a way this man’s soul hangs on the answer. If you only have a biblical justification for opposing gay marriage or domestic partnerships, please consider the fallibility of the book you are basing your vote on.

Randall Martoccia
Winterville

--------------------

I am a criminal. I am a heterosexual male, aged 50. I have been living here in North Carolina with my girlfriend (a strange term for a woman of roughly similar age) for more than seven years. We have no children and no intention of starting a family at this point in our lives. Our relationship is stable, loving and supportive. We simply dispensed with the step of getting a formal marriage certificate, signed by a religious and/or state officiating body. That means we are breaking the law in North Carolina. The 1805 state law banning male-female cohabitation is still on the books as a Class 2 misdemeanor.

In 2006, a state judge ruled that the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable, so nobody is hauling us off to court. But they could if they wanted to. The law is still there, waiting and ready to be used in a higher legal challenge and appeal. A bill attempting to repeal the law was introduced to the General Assembly in 2007 and was referred to committee. It has sat in that mythical committee for five years now. Apparently one legally unenforceable statute on the books is not enough. Make that two – North Carolina also has an existing law banning gay marriage, but folks seem concerned that it might not be sufficient or legally enforceable. It seems we need a change to the state constitution to further restrict and constrain domestic lifestyles.
Amendment One would add the following sentence to the state constitution: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.” That language isn’t just about gay couples. It affects all of the more than 70,000 domestic partnerships in this state, including those between men and women. It will open the door to untold confusion and legal battles over domestic violence, child custody, prison visitation, medical care, death benefits and more. State funds will be tied up in court cases for years. Service providers and businesses will not know how to make their benefit and notification policies comply. And law enforcement agencies will have a fascinating new responsibility for policing lifestyles.

This is not a religious issue. It is not a liberal/conservative issue. Amendment 1 affects practical, legal rights of citizens and has a direct fiscal effect on government, business and individuals. Don’t let 1805-era thinking control the practicalities of modern life in our great state. Amendment One is a bad idea.

Ken Molay
Cary

------------------------------

Myth One - Procreation (or perpetuation of the species) is the primary reason for marriage! Not so; people would continue to procreate with or without marriage. As of 2008, 41 percent of live births in the U.S. were to unwed mothers (face it, sex is fun!). And what of older heterosexual couples and those who are unable to (or choose not to) conceive. Is their marriage invalid? No, but they can adopt or utilize in vitro fertilization if they desire children – just like same-sex couples!

Myth Two - Amendment One is about preserving "the sanctity of marriage." I agree, the Bible favors marriage as an institution. But we, heterosexual couples, have screwed that up all by ourselves! Our divorce rate is close to 50 percent for first marriages, 60 percent for second marriages, and 70 percent for third marriages. How sanctified is that? We can't blame that on same-sex marriage (though some will try)l!

Myth Three - Same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage. Really, how? Will it cease to exist? No! Might it change? Possibly, and for the better.
Ask yourself (truthfully): How would same-sex marriage in any way affect your or my marriage? (It won't). Vote against Amendment One, please.

Phil Seymour
River Bend

---------------------------

There are many reasons to vote no to Amendment One. The amendment will strip rights from all unmarried couples in North Carolina, homosexual or heterosexual; threaten domestic violence laws; cause unmarried domestic partners and children of those relationships to lose health insurance benefits; deter businesses from coming to NC; and cost the state money that it does not have to defend it. But I’m voting no for a simpler reason. I’m voting no because the U.S. Constitution states that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Denying homosexual people the right to ever marry or enter into a civil union is a declaration that they are, in fact, not equal. It is a denial of their right to Liberty and their right to pursue Happiness. Because we live in a country in which church and state are separate (a policy, lest we forget, that protects not only the government from the intrusion of the church, but also the church from the intrusion of the government), it’s as simple as that. I’m voting no to Amendment One.

Theresa Dowell Blackinton
Durham

--------------------

I applaud Michael Weddington (4/12) and Albert Kurtz (4/12) for exercising their constitutional right to free speech in placing signs acknowledging their stance on the upcoming state constitutional amendment. As they illustrate our constitution (federal or state) and the rights that they grant are what makes us unique as a country. When these rights are trampled upon, we are upset. It is important. That is why it is essential that we understand the wording and how the amendment would harm hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.

Weddington states in his letter "I have no problem with those who choose to enter into non-traditional marital arrangements having access to benefits available to married men and women, but to me that is an issue for another time."

Unfortunately, Weddington has the wrong sign in his yard, because the discussion he wants to put off for another time is now. The sign in support of the amendment means that he supports an AMENDMENT to the State Constitution that would outlaw Gay Marriage and Civil Unions and dissolve all domestic partner benefits existing in several localities. This would remove benefits from families (yes, children), that have received them for years and depend on them.

Gay marriage is illegal in North Carolina and has been for 15 years! No one is talking about bringing it to North Carolina. I do not blame Weddington for his misinformation, some in the broadcast media have continually called this amendment "the marriage amendment" or "amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman."

We expect our media to be informed and not broadcast bad information. This amendment is a harmful piece of legislation worded to cause confusion. Please, North Carolina, take time to read the amendment in full - the part that will appear on the ballot and the part that the people will not be privy to on election day.

Dave Parnell
Raleigh

Why Newt Gingrich is a raccoon and not a gazelle

bwheeler — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:00:00 -0400

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, in a campaign swing through Raleigh this week, spent about an hour with 500 Broughton High students. Here are notes on his talk. This does NOT claim to be verbatim:

In 2009, Gingrich and his daughter wrote the book “The five principles for a successful life.” He shared those principles with the students before moving on to more difficult concepts, such as Social Security and energy policy, though he managed to make those interesting to teenagers.

The book grew out of interaction Gingrich had with middle schoolers. He realized that they may or may not care about conference committees, but they cared about their own lives.

First, he told them, dream big.

I don’t care what the dream is, whether it’s to be a ballerina, to open a business, to raise a family, to be a tour guide. If when you’re young you don’t have the courage to dream big, you don’t acquire it later. It’s a huge virtue at your age to think about how you want to live. You have an entire lifetime ahead of you. Who do you want to be?

Second, and this is discouraging for some of you, work hard. Everybody I ever talked with, people who are good at what they do, work hard. If you watched the Master’s yesterday, it’s amazing how many hours pro-golfers put in just to be good at putting a small white ball into a hole in the ground. They represent millions of people who tried to figure out how to do that. It’s true no matter who you want to be. If you’re gonna dream big, you have to work hard to achieve it.

Third, learn every day. I’m amazed as I go around the country as a candidate how much I learn, how many things I didn’t know. I was down at Hamlin’s drug store, the oldest African-American-owned drug store in the United States. Mr. Johnson bought it in 1956 when it was still segregated. He still comes in six days a week, he put both daughters through private school. He actually likes coming in. It’s his life and his hobby. It fits one of my ground rules for working hard: Nobody can work hard at something they hate. You don’t have the discipline to do it.

Fourth, enjoy life. The reason is if you’re not doing something you enjoy, not happy “ha ha” but if you don’t have a sense at the end of the week that I’m really glad I’m doing this, you can’t sustain it. Mr. Johnson, who goes in six days a week, was back yesterday when it was closed to wax the floors. That’s how he lives. I’m currently reading a biography of Vince Lombardi. He was totally immersed in football. He thought about it 365 days a year. You gotta have, no matter what you’re gonna do, you have to like doing it. If you like doing it, you’ll do it more often. America is a country that allows you to figure out what your hobby is and, if you’re clever, figure out how to get somebody to pay you to do your hobby.

So have a big dream about your life, work hard at that dream, learn every day but do it in a way that you enjoy life. If you don’t enjoy life, you can’t sustain it. Six days out of seven, it’s been fascinating. I learn all sorts of interesting things. I get up thinking, “I wonder what’s going to happen today. My whole life has been like that. How can you follow a life that pulls you forward?

And stay true to yourself. You don’t have to be true to anybody else. You have to be true to you. A real simple model: When you look in the mirror, do you like the person you see? If you don’t, you aren’t going to be able to escape from yourself.

Every time I stop and think about those five things, I think what is it I want to do, not what I have to do. The first thing to figure out is what you want to do.

I had a class, and I said, Your assignment is to write the story of your life to your grandchildren. It sobers an awful lot of people. They don’t imagine themselves as mothers or fathers, let alone grandmothers and grandfathers. Let’s figure it out. You’ll be 75, so 60 years out, it’s 2072. Here’s where I’m living and whether I’m well-off and what I’m up to and how I got here. It’s the biggest single impact I had as a college teacher. I had a young lady who wrote me and said, I was about to get married and live in my small town next to my parents doing exactly what I had done y whole life. When I wrote my biography, I realized what I wanted to do was travel. I broke up with my boyfriend and now I’m wiring you from Australia.

If you learn to think in the future and come back to right now, it’ll change how you make decisions.

You as citizens, you are going to inherit one of the great periods of change in American history. It’s absolutely unavoidable. We have all sorts of patterns building in the world, all sorts of patterns building in us. We have a political system incapable of dealing with them. It’s like a family vacation in large Winnebago. We’re running out of gasoline, two of the tires are bald and the brakes seem to not be working very well and, by the way, the windshield wipers are broken. If you add enough of those things up, there comes a morning when you run out of gas in the middle of the road in the middle of a rainstorm. Now you’re stuck. And somebody in the group is going to get wet.

You all are going to inherit a country that is going to go through these very big changes because what’s happened is the institutions have started to fail, and the cost of trying to solve them is greater than the system can figure out. So people are avoiding change. We’re going to drive 20 more miles hoping we’ll figure out a solution. At some point, if you don’t get it fixed, you’re outa gas.

Spain has 21 percent unemployment. Most of Europe, for those under 25, has 50 percent unemployment. There are people who are 30 years old who have never had a job. What makes it frustrating is, just the other side of the current Winnebago that is oug of gas is a giant gas station that nobody can see. There are a lot of opportunities. We don’t know how to deal with Social Security. It was invented in 1935 when the average person died at 62 and retirement began at 65. As a test of mathematics, if I offer you a bonus at 65 and you’re going to die at 62 on average, I can afford it because half of the people will die. What happens when everyone lives to 68? to 78? The system becomes unbalanced. The Washington solution to that is pain. It comes in two forms: raise taxes on you and make you work longer, and the other is to cut benefits for your parents and grandparents.

We have an alternative. It’s not a theory. Not an abstract. You can google it. Chile in 1980 adopted a personal Social Security account, a very simple model. Let’s say you got a work permit at 14 , worked for the summer. Under the Chilean model, all Social Security taxes would go into a savings account. It would build up compound interest through your entire working lifetimes. Under our current Social Security system, you won’t retire before you’re 70. That means you have 56 years of compound interest. They’re taking the initial investment and growing it every single year. In the Chilean model, every single person is now retiring with two to three times more money than in the traditional Social Security system. They won’t let you fall below the base payment. They make up the difference if you fall below it. In 30 years, they’ve written zero checks. Everyone has come in above that amount of money.

First of all, it’d be your money, not the government’s. If something happens to you, it goes to your estate. Today, your Social Security goes to the government. Because of the buildup, you’d have a huge savings pool. Look at the size of this room. If everyone has a savings account, even in just this one room, you end up building up a lot of money.

In Chile, that money is 70 percent of the whole economy, and there aren’t enough investments in Chile to absorb that money. They now can invest it overseas.

If we had adopted the Chilean model in 1980 ... all of those savings get invested in new businesses, we’d have a 6 or 7 trillion-dollar bigger economy.

It’s challenging in our political system to have discussions about something this complicated. We’re trying to fix an obsolete system. We need to move over to a modern system.

How many of you have somebody in your family or know somebody who has autism or Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s? One of the projects i want to launch is on brain research. Alzheimer’s is so prevalent that it affects 5 million people at any one time. Between now and 2050, it will cost us 20 trillion dollars. That’s real money. We did a study ... spent three years working on Alzheimer’s, and if we simply postpone onset by five years, not cure it, just postpone it, it would save 6 to 8 trillion dollars. There’s a reason you should be interested. It’s your money. You have a real interest. It’s also your family or your friends. Anybody who’s watched people wrestle with these disease ... it takes an enormous amount of energy to deal with a child with autism. There are human reasons as well as financial reasons. We need politics of big solutions: how would you fix these things? how would you cure these things?

How many of you drive? You’ve probably noticed the price of gasoline. I’ve proposed an American energy independence program. A very simple model. We need to produce 4 million a gallons a day more in the United States so no future American president bows to a Saudi king. Our goal is to have enough production in the United States to not rely on the Middle East. If you bring home and produce it in the United States, 4 million barrels a day of oil, you bring home 500 billion dollars more a year, several million more jobs.

In addition most of that oil would come from federal land or offshore drilling. They pay royalties to the federal government. This year we’ll pay $415 billion in interest on the debt. You’ll pay more taxes to pay interest on the debt than you’ll pay for national defense. This is your money. You’ll pay enough taxes to buy a Porsche. If you reduce the debt, reduce the interest you have to pay, that’s money in your pocket.

We need to develop an American program, create American jobs, keep the royalties and put them in a debt reduction plan. The difference in your lifetime is enormous. Take the Social Security plan and the American energy plan, the combination of the two allows you to have more money when you retire in a better economy with a better job with more income to spend on what you care about. If you design the right policies, that’s how different the future can be.

I’m talking about whether you pay $2.50 a gallor or $9 a gallon, whether you have a job or don’t have a job.

[Question from the audience: What are you views on health care? What do you plan on trying to accomplish in fixing our health care system?]

When I talked about brain research, I think that could bring down the total amount of health care a huge amount of money. Brain research properly applied, you’re talking about taking a huge amount of cost out of the system. The iron lung ... 70 years ago people really worried about polio. They were caught in this epidemic in summertime. They invented the iron long to keep them alive. Then they didn’t go to a better iron lung, they went to a polio vaccine. You can get breakthroughs in health care. We saved more money by not needing iron lungs than we ever would have by building better ones.

The more we know about you as an individual, the more unique the medicine’s going to be. In your lifetime, from a girl’s standpoint, each of you individually, when you put on make up ... are you with me so far? I know guys will be confused by this. Most of them anyway ... if you’re going out on Friday night and going to put on makeup, each girl has a different skin tone and different hair color. For church, you wear one level of makeup, on a date a different level, unique to each of you. I couldn’t come hree and say I have this new bureaucratic makeup solution. We understand that at the level of makeup, people are unique. Guess what? Genetically, you’re all unique. Your potential for getting breast cancer, genetically unique. Before you’re 40 years of age, we’re going to be able to have very personalized medicine just the way we have very personalized makeup. I’m not talking about some bureaucracy. Bureaucratic rules are for averages, not unique. We’ll be able to say here’s what you need to be eating, here’s what you need to be doing for exercise. Nutrition, attitude and activity can change it. People who can discipline themselves to stay energetic are healthier. What you eat matters. You don’t have to be a fanatic about it. But it’s true. I’m clearly designed to be a raccoon and not a gazelle. I’ve been looking for the ice cream and beer diet my whole life.

We need to change the insurance system. You get the same tax break, no matter how you get the money. Always buy as part of a group. Never buy as individuals. Walmart works because it aggregates the purchasing power of everyone who walks in the door. That’s what ought to happen with insurance. You should be part of a group. That would drive the cost down dramatically.

[Question from the audience: You spoke about increasing oil production in the United States. Do you have an energy plan that’s more environmentally friendly? ]

It’s important to us for national security reasons and economic reasons to have our own program. Getting oil that’s affordable and oil that’s American has a very, very high value.

[Question from the audience: It’s obvious Mr. Obama is running a very unsustainable economy. Can you do us a favor and Newter Obama?]

How bout you help me get through the North Carolina primary and we’ll get to Obama next?

[Question from the audience: How do you feel about kony 2012?]

I don’t know.

[The situation in Uganda.]

I don’t know enough to comment.

[Then never mind.]

[Question: What is your plan when all the oil runs out?]

That’s a great question. This is a good example of why I’m an optimist. There’s a permanent cultural pattern on the left of worrying about the next crisis. When I first started teaching back in 1971, there were books like “Limits to Growth,” all said the world was going to disintegrate by 1990, we’re going to run out of food. What they all underestimated is the power of science and technology. We keep inventing new things. How many of you have a cell phone with a camera? Cell phones don’t exist before 1978.

You have this constant breakthrough. Take the idea of running out oil. It’s very popular on the left that there’s a very limited amount of oil on the planet. iI’s essentially nonsense. In the last 15 years, we’ve invented a new model of how to drill for oil and gas. The result is the amount of natural gas we have, when there was a 7-year supply in 2000, it’s now a 125-year supply. You’ll be 140 when we run out. I’m not going to worry much about what happens when you’re 140. You’ve got 125 years for the next cycle of invention.

With all of the challenges we have, you are going to live in a generation of enormous technological progress. If we can get the bureaucracy to take advantage of that ... the challenge is political, not scientific and technological. The potential for your generation to have the best ever .... there is zero reason for the generation of you not to think you can do amazing things. The current system is sitting on the future and blocking the future, but it can be more amazing for you and your grandchildren.

Amendment One: Our friends and a fight for civil rights

bwheeler — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:54:58 -0400

As the May 8 election approaches, we're getting inundated by letters and Point of View submissions about Amendment One -- the "gay-marriage amendment -- the vast majority of which are against the amendment. As such, we can't begin to print them all in the paper.

Here is a Point of View on the subject by Scott Huler, a former N&Oer, former Piedmont Laureate and the author of many books, including "On the Grid: A Plot of Land, an Average Neighborhood, and the Systems that Make Our World Work."

By Scott Huler

A friend recently asked a simple favor -- that I come out as his friend and publicly state my alliance with the opponents of NC Amendment One, the anti-gay marriage amendment that would institutionalize and government-ize discrimination against gays and lesbians, among others.

He asked me to strike a small blow for the cause by just saying something on Facebook about our friendship. But rather than talk about that friendship, I chose to tell once again about my two beloved friends who did not attend my (first) wedding in Philadelphia because the fact that as lesbians they were not allowed to marry – and had to sit and listen to a lot of sanctimony that excluded them – made straight marriages impossible for them to attend.

I said the fact that my (first) marriage ended in tatters and their un-sanctioned union remained as strong today as it was almost a quarter-century ago told you all you need to know about what really threatens the institution of marriage.

I put that up on Facebook and got the expected tide of heartwarming support; Facebook is populated by friendships, and few of my friends are the type to think legislating inequality into the state constitution is a good idea; and even of those with uncertain feelings about gay marriage, most have enough education to know that the institution of marriage is a fungible, changing thing, regardless of whether your unassailable source of unalterable certainty is the bible or the history books.

But importantly, among the commenters on my post was Mary herself, part of that long-ago couple, with whom I now have a long-distance Facebook friendship that, though nowhere near as much fun as our shrieking-with-laughter-in-the-real-world friendship of decades ago, is still warm and important to us.

She said the following: “We missed a lot of weddings of dear, dear friends. It was such a difficult decision to make. Was it worth it? Did it make a difference? Well, we are married now ... at least in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I like to think our decades of activism have helped. We were officially married on our 30th anniversary!”

I said back to her: “Yes, it was worth it, and yes, it did make a difference. In fact, maybe that's a next step here: not only for gay and lesbian people to boycott weddings in states that outlaw gay marriage, but for straight people to do the same – and to move their weddings to states that practice marriage equality. How long do you think it would take for the catering and clothing and planning and tourism industries in North Carolina to come out against this amendment if straight people started taking their weddings to New England, Iowa, and Washington and refusing to get married in their own state?”

And you know what? I think that really might be the next step. Not seeing Mary at my first wedding was a small moment of sadness in an otherwise … well, an otherwise borderline happy occasion.Long story.

And as far as marriage goes, I hit the jackpot the second time around and am as happy as it’s legal to be.

Of course, as a straight person I can get married as many times as I want to – hell, I could get married as often as Newt Gingrich if I liked. And despite not sharing one evening at which I wore a tuxedo, Mary and I remain loving friends, and Mary and her partner are together forever. And yes, to be sure – I think Mary’s decision to forgo an occasion, in order to make a terribly important point, did play a role in waking up at least me, and we all know that change comes one person at a time.

You fight for civil rights on whatever front the war is being fought. Today, in North Carolina, it’s on the front of treating people with different orientations as though they’re all equally human and equally citizens. Maybe we’re at a moment when yard signs aren’t enough; when votes aren’t enough. Maybe we have to take our money out of local hall rentals, local catering orders, local bridal shop fittings – or at least out of those that don’t stand against divisive, wrongheaded and, ultimately, hateful legislation.

That’s a harsh stance, and if you fail to show up at someone’s wedding, sending a thoughtful note about why you’re not coming, it will cause hurt feelings. But I’m here to tell you: hurt feelings pass; real friendships, real unions last. It’s time to fight for what’s right.

As for Mary, she’s in Massachusetts now, so the marriage fight is in her rearview mirror. She’s fighting against the war machine now. Hopefully after May 8 I can once again follow her lead.

Amendment One: Outpouring of opposition

bwheeler — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:08:04 -0400

We have gotten scores of letters against Amendment One since John Long's Point of View "The case for the marriage amendment" ran March 23. We have gotten none in support of the amendment. That's right: zero. Find a dozen letters on tomorrow's Other Opinion page. Here are more than 20 more:

In his March 23 opinion “The Case for the marriage amendment,” John Long presents "reasons" to support the marriage amendment that are based on prejudice and religious beliefs. Allow me to point out a few flaws in his argument.

1)He asserts that we should support the marriage amendment because homosexual marriage was not considered during his lifetime. Well, I'm going to assume that he is in his 50s or 60s and suggest that a number of other things were not considered legal or were not mentioned in polite company such as the inequality of the races, blood transfusions of so-called white blood into African Americans and vice versa, the sterilization of persons deemed mentally challenged, and most notably, the law forbidding people of different races to marry. I, for one, am so glad that we, as a nation and a state, have progressed beyond these outdated and downright ignorant laws.

Does Long believe that we should have continued to treat people who are born with a darker skin tone as subhuman? If we could change our opinion about extending the right of marriage between the races, then we should also change our opinion and law to allow those who are born homosexual to marry.

2) He asserts that marriage is defined as one man, one woman and their children for the express purpose of procreation and raising children. This one is easy. A definition is not written in stone, and that definition is biblically based, thus cannot be imposed on the people of the state since the constitution expressly forbids the government from establishing laws establishing religion – basically we are forbidden to force our religious beliefs on others. If we pass a law against same sex marriage we are establishing a law that insists that we all must ascribe to Judeo-Christian religious beliefs.

3) God and/or evolution created men and women for procreation, and homosexuality ignores that fact. So do people who marry merely to be married because both know they are incapable for medical reasons of having children also ignore that fact? By arguing that they are married so they might be able to adopt or raise someone else's children is to ignore the fact that homosexual couples could also raise children. Suppose the homosexual couple is called on to raise the children of a family member? Shouldn't they also be married in order to give those children a stable home?

The argument that homosexuals do not provide the right foundation for raising children because there is an overemphasis of one gender, which multiplies all of the weaknesses of that gender, is a prejudiced fallacy that needs no counter argument. And finally, the argument that same-sex marriage would weaken marriage since those marriages may also fail in the same way that heterosexual marriages fail just makes no sense. In fact, homosexual marriage does not affect heterosexual marriages. Should we come to our senses and allow same sex marriage, heterosexuals would still be allowed to marry – and divorce – the same as they do now.

What it boils down to is that a religious group of narrow-minded people want to force the total population to ascribe to their beliefs. By passing this amendment we are ignoring the first amendment stipulation that Congress shall enact no laws as to the establishment of religion. This First Amendment trumps all other laws. It is sacrosanct for a reason. Religious beliefs have historically been the "reasons" for so much government oppression. Slavery and inequality were justified by religious beliefs. Long and his brothers in the legislature are repeating that time-honored tradition by using God as the reason to legalize discrimination.

We cannot as compassionate, intelligent, right-minded citizens allow the marriage amendment to become law in North Carolina.

Jennifer Weston
Smithfield

------------------------

John Long's point of view concerning the proposed marriage amendment admits a number of impediments to the marriage of true minds. He fixes marriage in a permanent place as an institution solely for the birthing and care of children.
Apparently, barren heterosexual couples should only be allowed the privilege of marriage if they will adopt or at least raise a child. And those who marry late in life, choosing a mate to grow old along with, ought to have their nuptials voided.

His insistence that research supports his position against gay couples adopting children is outdated and poorly stated. Measures of children's adjustment are not significantly associated with parental sexual orientation. Furthermore, when we look at this issue we are considering adopted children. Would it be better for a child to be reared by a series of foster parents, or an orphanage staff, as caring as most of these people are, or to be adopted by a committed homosexual married couple?

Anyhow, I continue to find a distinction between marrying for purposes of breeding, and marrying someone you love and want to spend your life with. My wife and I are fortunate to have had a child, but we also feel fortunate to have had a deep and rewarding personal relationship in our marriage of more than 40 years.

Don Taylor,
Raleigh

-----------------------
Regarding John Long's Point of View: These arguments are at best circular and weak. His first point is that marriage has always been between a man and woman. When someone gives their best argument as "we have always done it that way" this doesn't hold water with me. Using this logic women would not have the right to vote and some of us would still be owning slaves to mention just a couple of practices of the past which were felt to be OK in their day.

He then says "the reason for marriage has always been children.” With this logic it follows that younger heterosexual couples who want to get married should be required to pledge to have children and subjected to fertility testing. What about older heterosexual couples who are beyond the age to have children? Long's logic should argue that these couples couldn't enjoy the rights of marriage. He then goes on to say that childless heterosexual married couples can be let off the hook by adopting or caring for other's children. Let's just go ahead and make that a requirement of marriage while we are at it. I'm sure the authors of Amendment One could go along with that.

Long goes on to say that "studies have shown" that children do best with a mother and father in the same home. If one parent is missing, it is "sub-optimal, but workable.” I do not agree that two loving parents who happen to be of the same sex are not able to raise children and therefore inferior to a single parent household. As is usually the case you can't generalize these things.

Finally I would like to vet the studies he mentions that detail same-sex unions in Europe, which indicate more infidelity and shorter duration of same-sex unions. Unless we know what statistical methods were used and can confirm the authors of these studies had no bias the results don't really mean much.

I have been waiting to see some really thoughtful arguments in favor of Amendment One; I have yet to see one.

Mike Anthony
Cary
------------------------

I realize that as a news publication, you are bound to report and publish all sides of an issue, especially a contentious one. But John Long’s op-ed was ridiculous.
First of all, someone can't just write "studies show" in an article and arrive at absolute credibility. None of those supposed studies are named or even alluded to other than the fact thatthe author assures us that they exist.

Secondly, and perhaps this is better saved for the comments on the article itself, but these arguments are so unbelievably tired that I'm surprised the N&O would publish them. Redefine marriage? Marriage has evolved as an institution ever since its inception and has been redefined in both church and state countless times. It’s gone from reproductive necessity, to property contract, and only recently (in the grand scheme of things) has had anything to do with love or commitment, both of which are perfectly achievable by same-sex partners.

Marriage exists for reproduction? Maybe if this were the dark ages. There are so many examples of married people who can't or don't want to reproduce, of opposite sex couples who are not married but do have children, and same sex and opposite sex couples who adopt children that would otherwise grow up in foster care. I ask you, which is worse, two daddies or moving from foster home to foster home?
I think the answer would be obvious even to Long.

Lastly, trying to couch this in a logical light that is not connected to religious argument should be insulting to both gay and straight alike. We are talking about civil marriage here, not raw evolutionary forces or church doctrines. Long is right, gay people can't marry whether or not this amendment passes but does that make it right? Of course not. He also conveniently fails to mention that this amendment will strip away the rights of heterosexual couples in domestic partnerships, that gay people aren't the only ones affected by this.

The logical reasons to vote against this amendment are so obvious I can't even believe I have to write them.
) Gay couples by and large spend money. They aren't going to live or work here if this is the way NC behaves, which is bad for the local economy.
2) Most businesses accept and provide benefits for gay employees. Again, if you suddenly have to treat a large portion of your staff or potential staff differently and negatively, why would you want to bring your business here?
3) The most important one. Two adults should have the right to marry. Period. Some people say, "but marriage isn't a right!" Well, neither was voting for women or sitting anywhere on the bus that you like or a thousand other things that society realized needed to be protected and given as unalienable privileges to all peoples. Being treated equally is a right and marriage is one of the most obvious examples of the "pursuit of happiness" that I can think of.

So, N&O, by all means publish contrary opinion but when someone cites studies, makes supposedly scientific arguments and presents opinions as facts I think you should think twice. I'm sure there were plenty of folks who gladly give you their personal opinion on the matter instead of an excerpt from some misinformed and fictional textbook.

Cory Livengood
Raleigh citizen, gay, human
------------------

To think all these years I believed one had to be logically minded to design computer software! I do not think I’ve ever read more illogically written nonsense than I did in the March 23 Op Ed written by software engineer John Long.

Where to begin? For starters, how is it possible to create a “synthetic demand” for gay marriage if the request to have their marriages recognized has been initiated by none other than the very people who wish to marry and have legal unions with their mates?

Already fuming two lines in, I then read the statement “Thus, marriage equals one man, one woman and their children.” Except in Hollywood, how many couples head to the altar with their children in tow or consult with them as to whether or not to marry? And what about the millions of heterosexual couples who either cannot conceive for medical reasons or who simply choose not to bring children into this overpopulated world, or those who honestly just do not like children? According to Long’s logic, I guess the childless shouldn’t be married at all. Do we rescind marriage licenses after a certain period unless a child appears in the equation?

Countless people, only a half century ago, adamantly opposed mixed marriage between the races, no less so than Long and others oppose gay marriage. Just because those were largely unchallenged beliefs held by generations, does that mean they were right? And what of those before them who would even quote scripture as a means to justify human slavery? Were they not convicted in their beliefs just as today’s groups opposed to gay marriage? Basing your argument on the notion that we have to keep doing what we’ve always done because “this is the way it’s always been done” ranks right up there with “because I say so” in terms of logic. Anyone who studies world history knows that over the ages societies worldwide have become more and more civilized (with glaring exceptions) and better willing to accept and live harmoniously aside those with differing viewpoints and ways of life. Thankfully many of the mindsets of former societies have gone by the wayside.

Long’s second reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage is because “either God or evolution, depending on your stand” created the genders and therefore intends only opposite genders to love one another romantically. If God only creates heterosexuals and then certain people just “choose” to become homosexual, why is it that even as young children yet to develop any notion of sexuality, gays and lesbians already feel drawn to the same sex? Why, despite J. Edgar Hoover’s mother’s well-established homophobia and life-long desire to see her son married to a woman, did he instead choose a homosexual relationship with another man (a relationship that lasted far longer than most of today’s traditional marriages)? If we take time to talk to people we learn that homosexuality was no more a choice for them than choosing their eye color, and the God in whom I believe doesn’t do anything accidentally.

Then there’s the mind-blowing rationale that since divorce rates are already high, gay marriage is going to cause that number to rise. Perhaps in recognition that the worn out argument of successful gay marriage weakening heterosexual marriage has proven so illogical, opponents are now making the leap that as a straight person I, for example, am more likely to get divorced if my friend Elic marries his partner Ed, and they later divorce.

Our society has condoned divorce and made it so socially acceptable that many people admit to marrying only because there is the option to divorce if things don’t work out. Instead of doing the hard work it takes to remain committed in a marriage, we make it perfectly OK to take the easy way out. Few people even bat an eye when they hear a couple has divorced, yet if a gay couple gets divorced it is going to increase everyone’s odds of divorce?

Here’s what makes this argument even more bizarre – on one hand there’s the assertion that gay marriage really can’t be considered marriage by definition, therefore we shouldn’t even contemplate it; meanwhile the divorces in those “marriages” are nevertheless going to negatively impact the rest of us by adding to the divorce rate. Sounds to me like all the more reason to support these individuals in their marriages! Or perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether for everyone as the fail proof way to stop divorce.

Finally, and in clearest desperation, Long’s response to those who believe marriage is as much a right to a loving, committed gay couple as to heterosexuals (about half of whom will end up divorcing anyway) is that since this amendment would not take away rights from those who already have said rights, it is not hurting anyone. There shouldn’t even be a need to point out how ridiculous this sounds, but by this argument, we didn’t need to give women the right to vote since men already had that right, um . . . right?

I have heard even other well-intentioned heterosexuals say that while they are not homophobic it just seems strange to see same-sex couples. As a child growing up in the 1970s in NC, it seemed very odd to me the first few times I saw interracial couples, but how many people today are willing to say it was a good idea to prohibit those marriages? Or that those marriages have been the downfall of our society? Even if they produced no offspring.

Julie Dwyer
Cary

---------------------------------------------------------

“For most of my lifetime, gay marriage was never a consideration.” In the early years of my lifetime, interracial marriage was never a consideration. In the early years of my mother’s lifetime, women did not have the vote. Does John Long intend that we stay rooted in the biases of his own particular lifetime because he’s a straight white male?

“The very definition of marriage has always been one man, one woman and their children.” Always? What about the biblical patriarchs with their many wives? Most of the major religions of the world have countenanced polygamy at one time or another and it still flourishes in parts of the Islamic world. Closer to home, what about Mitt Romney’s own Mormon grandparents? “Always” is a very long time.

"Studies have shown . . .” What studies? Studies undertaken by impartial recognized sociological institutes or biased groups with an agenda?

“Should traditional marriage be upheld in North Carolina, no one’s rights will be curtailed.” What fallacious reasoning! Because there is currently no right to same-sex marriages now doesn’t mean that it’s fair to continue to deny it to a group of our fellow citizens. The same could have been said about slavery in the 1800s. Because there was no law against slavery, the rights of the enslaved were not “curtailed.” According to the law, they had no rights.

I can understand why same-sex marriage feels uncomfortable to some of the citizens of our state who were born straight. This must be how earlier white males felt when native Americans, blacks and women began insisting on a God-given right to pursue equality.

I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how legalizing same-sex marriage is going to weaken my marriage. Or for that matter, Long’s. Is his union that fragile? Until then, I urge my fellow Tar Heels to vote against this mean-spirited marriage amendment.

Margaret Maron
Johnston County

-----------------------------

In 20 years both of my children will be in their early 20s (they are 3 years old and 4 months old right now). I can only imagine what they'll think when we look back at the Spring of 2012 when our community debated about whether to support the anti-gay, anti-family constitutional amendment.

Supporters of this amendment say that it "defends and protects the institution of marriage" by making it illegal to recognize their moms' relationship in any way. In 20 years, we'll look back and chalk this amendment up to last ditch efforts to discount, shame and dishonor families like ours. The tides are changing. Legal recognition of our family is inevitable. Too many families like ours are living our lives fully out and engaged in the world.

Just this week, one of our state's biggest supporters of the amendment, House Speaker Thom Tillis, conceded that if passed, this amendment will be overturned by those of my kids' generation. I'm sure that my kids will be able to clean up this mess if they have to. In the meantime, we'll keep teaching them how to tie their shoes, eat a good breakfast and bring more love into the world.

And, because of the work and tireless organizing by brave people that has happened for decades before us and continues now, our family and families like ours will soon be seen as part and parcel of any and every community. In my opinion, love has always changed the world. There is no love to be found in this amendment. We should all vote against it, if for no other reason than to be proud of ourselves when we are explaining to our children what we did during the Spring of 2012.

Chantelle Fisher-Borne
Durham

--------------------
With the vote on Amendment One coming in May, we are hearing much about the definition of marriage and exactly who gets to participate. I think we are talking about the wrong word. We should be talking about family. This word conjures up strong feelings. For some there are feelings of loyalty, acceptance, safety, and warmth; for others, betrayal, rejection, abuse, and danger.

Some of my friends say a family consists of a mother, a father and their children. It is a lovely goal. But in my work with the public, I am seeing something else: traditional families, yes, but also single-parent families, blended families, families with gay parents, foster families, parents who abuse their children, parents who abuse each other, grandparents raising their grandchildren, children who live in abandoned buildings and homeless shelters, children being neglected by parents, and children being raised by heterosexual parents who abandon their safety and security to drugs and violence.

Do we really want our state constitution to further undercut the security of any child? Who has a right to live in a family? I think we all do. We all have the right to try, anyway. I am passionately voting against Amendment One.

Susan Davis
Apex

---------------------------------------------------------

Your article “Proposed pro-marriage amendment rallies Christian support” seems paradoxical. Assuming the Christ in Christian is Jesus Christ, whose story is told in the Gospels of the Bibles New Testament, he never said anything about sexual preference. In fact when asked which commandment was the most important, he was quoted in the Gospel of Mark to reply; The most important one is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.

Most Christians have the first one nailed, in word if not in act. But that second one, not so much. I have always felt that we cannot obey the first without obeying the second of these, the two commandments so important in the ministry of Christ.

Supporting an amendment that not only discriminates against, but marginalizes our LGBT neighbors as somehow less human is an affront to the teachings of Christ. I applaud the many Christian groups who have spoken out against this amendment of discrimination! I pray for those who profess to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, but still harbor such hate for their LGBT neighbors

L.F. Eason
Cary

-------------------------

March 23 Point of View author John Long needs a history lesson. The reason for marriage has not always been about children, and it’s debatable if it is now. For centuries, marriage was usually nothing more than a contract between land-owning families who wished to expand their holdings. Women had little, if any, say in the matter, and were treated as property to be bought and sold. They had hardly any rights (and in some countries still don’t today) and were legally allowed to be beaten by their husbands as late as the 19th century if the stick was smaller than his thumb. Hence the “rule of thumb” law.

The history of marriage is more complicated than Long seems willing to recognize. And making it available to only one group of people will be looked at as one more unfortunate skeleton in its closet in years to come. Thank goodness we evolve, or I may not have been allowed to write this letter.

Stephanie Owens
Raleigh

-------------------------

Forty years ago I was working to put the man I love through graduate school. Now my son’s life partner is working to put the man he loves through graduate school. They have been together since their early 20s and have owned a house together for 11 years.

Why should the law treat their commitment differently than the commitment of my husband and me? They can’t legally marry in North Carolina now. The passage of Amendment One would take away the hope that in the future they might be entitled to at least the second-class status of a civil union.

Legal recognition of their commitment would harm on one. Marriage equality will neither prevent one straight couple from marrying nor cause one straight couple to divorce. It is frightening to think that North Carolinians would write discrimination into our constitution just to be mean.

Janet Palmquist
Raleigh
---------------------------

I read John Long’s March 23 Point of View article about Amendment One and was honestly appalled. The gist of his arguments was that marriage is defined by, and exists, for reproduction/children. I find it interesting that in all his argument, he neglects several types of marriages that the law protects and society accepts that do not involve children.

I have several friends who intend to marry and not have children. When two of my friends married in Boston a couple years ago they were not refused the right to marry because they did not believe children were right for them. Elderly couples are not prohibited from marrying. Couples that cannot have children, and elect not to adopt, do not have their marriage dissolved based on their life choices.

Even more importantly, in this day and age a gay couple has the chance to use surrogacy or adopt children, depending on their state’s laws. Religion and personal beliefs aside, this is not all that different from a heterosexual couple using surrogacy because one or both husband and wife are unable to have children, or adopt for the same reason.

There are many ongoing and completed studies that dispute Long’s assertion that a same-sex marriage is detrimental to the raising of children, or that such marriages are exponentially worse than single-parent households. In fact, many articles suggest that two parents, regardless of gender, provide more quality care for children than a single parent.

I am expecting my first child in June, and I find it absolutely appalling that my personal choice to have a child with my husband is the only thing that validates my union with my husband in Long’s eyes.

Tradition alone is not a valid reason to continue a practice; society has changed over thousands of years and our laws have as well. I shudder to think of where I would be should we follow Long’s suggestion of letting tradition guide all our life choices and decisions.

Lorilie Hardee
Raleigh
--------------------------

The March 23 Point of View “The case for the marriage amendment” states that the reason for marriage has always been children. The writer disregards the fact that the reasons for marriage have changed over the centuries.

Yes, marriage and the cult of virginity became a way for men to ensure that only their children enjoyed the fruits of their labors. Marriage, however, was also used for centuries to cement political alliances and to repay debts (the commodity being women, who had no say). Only in the last 100 years has marriage evolved into its highest yet toughest state: a loving, consensual monogamous joining of two lives in all matters spiritual and legal.

Many religious conservatives tell teenagers to abstain from sex, that “they’re not animals, they should control their hormones” yet at the same time they’re saying that sex is for procreation only, as it is for the most part in the animal kingdom. This is contradictory.

Marriage is more than just sex, and sex is for more than just procreation. It is best when children are raised in happy and supportive households, no matter the genders of the parents.

Freda Kerr
Raleigh
-------------------------

I can’t let John Long’s outrageous March 23 Point of View article go unchallenged. He basically makes the case that ignorance to date is a justification for ignorance going forward. As a heterosexual male in a fantastic childless marriage, I am deeply offended by his statement that my loving marriage’s only role is to support other heterosexual couples who have fulfilled the prime directive of adopting or reproducing.

My marriage provides mutual love, support, understanding and a host of other critical needs to sustain a fulfilling life and support my community, and I assure you that my friends who are gay need this institution every bit as much as I do. And please stop quoting unnamed pseudo-scientific studies about the evils of homosexual relationships and the inadequacies of homosexual parents. There are simply no scientific peer-reviewed studies anywhere that show children are any better off being raised by heterosexual couples than homosexual ones. You simply need to meet the kids being raised by gay parents to know instantly that this argument is completely bogus.

The God I believe in says all men are equal in His eyes. My wife and I look forward to the day very soon that we can attend the weddings of all loving couples in North Carolina.

Frank Konhaus
Chapel Hill

-----------------------------------

The Board of Directors of the Jewish Federation of Durham/Chapel Hill (JFDCH) are proud to join with other Jewish federations in North Carolina and all of our local congregations in issuing a statement opposing the Amendment 1 resolution.

The statement passed by our board reads: On May 8, 2012, North Carolina citizens will be asked to vote on an amendment that adds the following sentence to the North Carolina Constitution: Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

The JFDCH community, which includes the Levin JCC and Jewish Family Services, has straight, gay and lesbian members, and we believe that our national and state constitutions and laws should protect all individuals from discrimination and social injustice. The JFDCH board urges all citizens of North Carolina to oppose this constitutional amendment because this invalidation and nonrecognition of civil rights of valued community members are not consistent with our ideas of justice, equal protection under the law or our communal values.

Jeff Koweek
President
Steven Schauder
Executive director, Jewish Federation of Durham-Chapel Hill
Durham

-------------------------------

In arguments about the proposed marriage amendment, I have now seen existing state law used as a rationale for both support and opposition. There is a fundamental issue that trumps any such specifics of this case and deserves to be the key point of discussion.

Ron Paul, the ACLU and the NAACP (among others) have all stated this point very clearly, but I’m not hearing it anymore amid all the shouting, and President Obama missed an opportunity in his statement last week.

The purpose of the constitution is to define the actions of the state and preserve the rights of the citizens. The North Carolina constitution currently contains approximately two limitations on the rights of citizens. (These have been challenged, are not enforced and probably should be removed.)

Regardless of any related existing law, any modification to the constitution that restricts the people is a bad idea. That is the only argument of right and wrong that matters for this situation, and I can in clear conscience oppose any such amendment, regardless of whatever personal feelings I have on the issue.

David Skaar
Raleigh

------------------------

Supporters of Amendment One often talk about the need to defend marriage. My response is that same-sex marriage does not hurt the institution of marriage, but actually bolsters it as the primary way to structure a family in our society. To those who disagree, how does same-sex marriage hurt your marriage at all? It doesn’t.

Two people loving each other and getting married neither hurts your individual marriage, nor damages the institution.

Same-sex marriage is markedly different from incest, polygamy or child marriage because the latter arrangements carry some harm to an individual or to society. Same-sex marriage does not harm the people in the marriage, does not hurt others’ marriages and does not injure society.

However, the proponents of marriage are right to be alarmed, as overall marriage rates in the U.S. are declining. Fewer and fewer people are choosing to get married.

It is ironic that the defenders of marriage now seek to exclude a whole class of people who actually want to join the institution.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry would strengthen the institution of marriage, just as allowing interracial marriages did. It would be unfortunate indeed if the people purporting to protect marriage actually harmed it because of their personal prejudice.

Hayleigh Stewart
Chapel Hill

-----------------

I’ve read a number of the letters regarding Amendment One with great sadness. As a white, heterosexual, Christian male, it pains me to see my faith used to justify discrimination and intolerance. Christians who claim otherwise are lying or deluding themselves.

Writers have said that failure to pass Amendment One is a step toward polygamy (which ironically does have a Biblical precedent), pedophilia and bestiality. I would argue that passing it is a step toward eliminating the validity of marriages of others who are different from white Christian Americans. First to go might be interracial marriages, then non-Christian marriages. After all, many supporters of Amendment One are using Christianity to support their beliefs, so why should they support other non-Christian marriages? Absurd? Perhaps, but no more so than the claims above.

The reality is if the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws had been put to popular vote, they would have failed. According to Gallup, it wasn’t until 1997 that a majority of Americans approved of black-white marriages, a full 30 years after Loving v. Virginia ruled anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional, laws which were also defended using Christianity.

My Christian faith supports acceptance, understanding, appreciation and love. Does your faith?

Bill Velto
Cary

------------------

Regarding John Long’s March 23 Point of View article (“The case for the marriage amendment”): If Long’s is the best case to be made for the amendment, those of us against it should be able to rest easy. Long seems to feel that “one man and one woman” can’t have and raise children unless they have a marriage sanctioned by the state. I think that all agree that the best way to raise children is in “a loving, stable and lengthy relationship,” but Long feels that it would be impossible for two women or two men to have such a relationship.

I am approaching my 75th birthday and have known, and presently know many same-sex couples who have been, and are in “loving, stable and lengthy relationship(s).” Some of these relationships are more than 50 years in length.

When Long notes that heterosexual couples in state-sanctioned marriages are included “in this institution because of the possibility of adoption or helping to raise the children of others” he, again, indicates that same-sex couples, or even heterosexual couples in committed relationships not sanctioned by the state, would be unable to raise children. And, of course, many same-sex couples do have children of their own. State-sanctioned marriage has never been required for a woman to conceive.

Long's paragraph about studies showing that children do best when both a “(female) mother and (male) father are present” is beyond convoluted. I can presume he is talking about divorced parents when he says “if one parent is missing, it is sub-optimal, but workable” but his theory that it would be much worse for the child with same-sex parents because “[A]ll of the weaknesses of a single gender are multiplied in a single sex marriage,” I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. I had to decide that you ran the article just for sport!

His conclusion that no one’s rights will be lost under the amendment is disingenuous and inherently wrong. Committed same-sex and opposite-sex couples would have much to lose: partner benefits presently provided by many municipalities and employers; the ability to care for one’s partner in life and death situations; the invalidation of domestic violence protections for all unmarried couples; undercutting existing child custody and visitation arrangements; invalidation of trusts and wills of one partner in favor of another.

The amendment reads: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” As Long points out, the present law in North Carolina defines marriage as between one man and one woman. So why do we need a constitutional amendment? Perhaps a more important question is “Whom would this amendment help?” The answer is, obviously, no one. I believe that thinking North Carolinians will vote against the amendment.

Fran Langstaff
Durham
-------------------------

On Wednesday, March 28th, I attended the Marriage Amendment Forum held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest. I am sad to say that it was a lesson in how to hate and legally denigrate 8 to 11 percent of our society.
There were six panelists delivering prepared statements. Audience members were not given an opportunity to ask questions.

“The children of these marriages will suffer” was offered as justification to keeping marriage available to superior persons only. In the 1960s I remember this cry being used by the racist opponents to inter-racial marriage in order to back up their biblical claims of racial purity. Perhaps children are hurt more by having hate-filled parents.

With a smile, one panelist stated, “Without a constitutional amendment the legislature can pass marriage laws without a vote by the people.” That’s not how it works! The people elect the legislators to represent them! The people vote for the legislator and the legislator formulates the law.

Another panelist called for “biblical citizenship” and was “against State Law reciprocity.” This implies advocating the repeal of Article. IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” A split second wedding in Vegas MUST be recognized as legal, even in a state requiring a two week waiting period. A legal homosexual marriage in Maine should be recognized in North Carolina regardless of local legislation.

(Note: U.S. Rep. Walter Jones has recently reintroduced his retro-Medieval legislation to legalize church electioneering in America. If Jones has his way, houses of worship will be free to dive into partisan politics all over the nation, much to the detriment of both religion and democracy.)

Other illogical claims were:
1. “Gay Marriage threatens social stability.”
2. “Single sex marriage is narrow and limited, so heterosexual marriage actually represents diversity.”
3. “Marriage is not a private matter… we must legislate morality.”

So, “God, Our Father” is a single-sex parent and His children didn’t turn out well. (And, yes, we are suffering because of them.) Maybe God should be referred to as “S/He/It, just to cover our bases and introduce diversity.

Often the audience was reminded that homosexuals were a minority and, in our country, “the majority rules.” Have these Baptist experts forgotten that the Bill of Rights protects the individual citizen and the hated minority from the misguided will of the majority?

Other references were made justifying ignoring another minority group, “the ungodly liberals.” They must not have heard of the Gallop poll released Tuesday that classifies 40 percent of Americans nationwide as very religious – based on their statement that religion is an important part of their daily life and that they attend religious services every week or almost every week.

Another 32 percent of Americans are nonreligious, based on their statement that religion is not an important part of their daily life and that they seldom or never attend religious services.

The remaining 28 percent of Americans are moderately religious, because they say religion is important but that they do not attend services regularly or because they say religion is not important but still attend services.

It seems that one-third of Americans are “ungodly” regardless of political preference.

If this marriage amendment is approved by our citizens and this biblical tenant becomes part of our legal code, how is this different from Sharia Law in Muslim countries?

Buddy Owens
Raleigh
------------------------------

Amendment One is 100 percent a religious idea trying to be inserted into our State Constitution. The vast majority of people in favor of the amendment cite Bible passages proclaiming homosexuality as a sin. Therefore according to their religious beliefs, we must outlaw homosexual marriage, and other forms of union that they don't approve of. I've heard the arguments that “traditional” marriage is good for society, creates stability, raising kids by two opposite sex parents is the only good way to raise kids etc. etc. So I guess you can just disregard the 50 percent divorce rate and the big percentage of single parent homes because everything is great under the current laws and we need to strengthen them some more. Perhaps Amendment One should also include a “no divorce clause” and a 'no single parent clause” to force couples with children to stay together for the good of the kids.

While the religious people think Amendment One is a great solution to controlling homosexuals and others according to their beliefs, they better be careful what they wish for. As conservatives like to say “this is starting down a slippery slope” by inserting religious ideas into our Constitution. The percentage of people practicing “traditional American” religions in this country is dropping and the number of atheists and “other” religions is increasing. How would supporters feel if atheists tried to get an amendment to outlaw the Bible because they believe it’s the root of all evil committed in the name of God? Or how about Muslims trying to make the Quran the official religious document and Islam the official religion, like many Middle Eastern countries? And please don't say “that could NEVER happen here.” Just remember that minorities now make up more that half the population. Since only around half or fewer people actually vote in this country, you really only need about 25 percent of the voting population behind an idea to get laws changed.

James Riley
Youngsville
---------------------------------------------------------

The case against the case for Amendment One

bwheeler — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:06:02 -0400

We got lots of negative response to today's Point of View "The case for the marriage amendment," (read it here) many of the letters far too long to run. Here's a sampling. Some of these likely will see print. Coming Sunday in Sunday Forum, many other letters on the amendment, several in favor.

Married, no kids

Dear Ministry of Sanctimonious Marriage, I’m writing you because of a guilty conscience that will not let me rest until I come clean. You see, my wife and I, although married more than 10 years, have steadfastly refused to sire children. It had been our naive assumption that our commitment to each other was good enough for a marriage. That was until we learned today the only reason we were sanctioned for marriage in the first place was because of your fervent hope we would, at the very least, adopt or help raise someone else’s children!

First, in our own defense, let me say we had no knowledge of this requirement until just recently. Honestly. It was probably someplace in the marriage contract and we were just distracted by other things when it was explained to us. I’m sure it was merely a bureaucratic mix-up and things somehow managed to slip through the cracks – we are not scofflaws!

But now we must admit our feelings of guilt and shame for how we must have led you on with false hopes all these years, what with our intentions to never adopt nor to help raise the children of others! We realize what a disappointment this must be for you, squandering our gender-given right to marriage that many undesirables are just itching for a shot at. At least we can keep those uppity folks in their place, right? We sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding, and we hope this does not affect our marriage accreditation and will not void our warranty.

Stephen Barsky
Raleigh

--------------------

Bizarre biblical marriage

John Long's March 23 Point of View article supporting the marriage amendment contained the usual assortment of illogical and factually mistaken elements. I am surprised that anyone would endorse a "traditional" view of marriage. Historically, such tradition was anything but one man/one woman. In particular, biblical views are quite bizarre by current standards as they include: a woman who marries but isn't a virgin should be stoned to death; men may have a wife and several concubines a la Abraham and Joseph; men may have multiple wives a la Gideon or Esau or 700 wives a la Solomon; a childless widow must marry her brother-in-law and have children; slave owners should assign female slaves to their male slaves.

In subsequent ages, marriage was mostly used for defining property rights and was primarily a business matter. Further, the Bible has little to say about same-sex behaviors and nothing re same-sex marriage. Most often cited is Leviticus – by whose standards virtually the entire human species would be condemned to death because of its dietary and fashion practices alone – and St. Paul, who was talking primarily about idolatry and its consequences. As to Lot and the saga of Sodom, offering his virgin daughters up for rape hardly seems a model for moral behavior.

Of course, all the above is irrelevant since historically, marriage was seen as a civil institution and, according to our Constitution, religious requirements have no standing in civil law. Also, children are not a requirement for marriage by definition or practice, or would Long deny this institution to couples who choose to remain childless, or annul marriages which become incapable of parenting?

Coupled with all this is the simple fact that there is no – that means zero – evidence that same-sex marriage has a negative impact on anything except the bigotry of its opponents.

Martin Eagle, Ph.D.
Durham

----------------------------------
Marriage model, stuck in time

Of the many arguments against same-sex marriage, the views expressed by John Long in his March 23 Point of View article were among the most ridiculous I have seen. His main gist is that things are the way they have always been and should not be changed. One shudders to think of the many freedoms we all enjoy that were not considered when our nation was founded.

A second argument made by Long is that the main and only purpose of marriage is to produce children. This reflects an interesting assumption – that somehow there will be fewer traditional marriages if same-sex couples are allowed to marry and, therefore, fewer children.

However, the most extreme of Long’s arguments was that since same-sex couples do not have the right to marry now, they will not be losing a right since they never had it. The list of examples here are almost endless. Since slaves in America had never been free, they would not have lost any rights should slavery not have been abolished. Since woman did not have the right to vote, they would have lost nothing had that right never been given.

I am interested in arguments against same-sex marriages that are not based on "the way it has always been," that are not based an any one form of religion since our form of government is not a theocracy, and that are not based on the notion that since an American citizen may not have had a particular right in the past, he or she should have no right to expect it in the future.

James F. Gollattscheck
Cary

-------------------------
Amendment defies logic, threatens N.C. economy

On March 23 you ran a Point of View piece John Long entitled "The case for the marriage amendment." Though I did not recently depart a spaceship, as Long concludes I must have for not sharing his view point, I would like to respond to his conclusion that "Clear-thinking North Carolinians will vote" for the marriage amendment.

Long's basic assertion centers on the definition of the word "marriage" and what that means. To paraphrase, Long believes that "marriage has always been ‘one man, one woman, and their children'." One of his base assertions is that because homosexual couples cannot physically produce any offspring through mutual sexual reproduction, they cannot be "married." Interestingly enough, however, Long includes childless heterosexual couples in the group eligible for "marriage." Would he include heterosexual couples who are unable to have children due to a medical condition in his "marriage" eligible group? Are these families, who often adopt children into loving households, not identical to homosexual families who do the same?

As you can see, the definition of the word "marriage" is probably not as black and white as people such as Long make it out to be. In fact, voting "No" on Amendment 1 does not legalize gay marriage in the State of North Carolina nor does it change anyone's definition of the word "marriage." A "No" vote simply says that you, the voter, are not willing to legitimize discrimination in this state.

However, this argument over the definition of a word confounds other issues that are at stake in this bill. Really, in a time of significant economic downturn across our state and through out the country, do we really need to be spending money and voters' attention on making something that is already not legally recognized even more illegal?

Long asserts that because gay marriage is not currently recognized in North Carolina, that Amendment 1 will do no harm to homosexual couples, because they can't get married anyway. (Never mind the fact that legal experts differ on the effects that the wording of the amendment may have, with some suggesting that unintended consequences could affect both homo- and heterosexual unmarried couples and their rights to share insurance policies, end of life decisions, etc.) We're just hammering home the point. No biggie, right?

Well, actually it is kind of a biggie. A 2011 Public Policy Polling survey of registered North Carolina voters found that 93 percent of those polled believed that the General Assembly should be focusing on jobs, the economy and the state budget. An Elon University poll the same year showed that 57 percent of North Carolinians support same sex marriages or civil unions (35 percent oppose legal recognition for same-sex couples). Regardless of these polling results, the General Assembly proceeded with a special session in order to debate something that the majority of the general populace already opposed.

The special session of the General Assembly that was called to write and approve Amendment 1 for inclusion on the May ballot (a special session that lasted three days, for an amendment that is 55 words long) cost the state taxpayers $150,000. So Amendment 1 has already cost our state money. What might it cost in the future?

Well, the facts are that many Fortune 500 companies (over 85 percent actually) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Many of these companies offer same-sex couple benefits which would be prohibited if Amendment 1 is passed. Furthermore, the validation of what essentially amounts to a discriminatory policy aimed at homosexuals will be a turn-off to many large (and probably small) companies that might consider relocating to North Carolina.

Cathy Bessant, a former Charlotte Chamber chair, and global technology and operations executive for Charlotte-based Bank of America, has publicly stated that passing Amendment 1 would confirm to the country that North Carolina has a backward looking economy and that it would have a "disastrous effect on our ability to attract talent and retain talent," specifically in the technology and biotech fields – areas that are high growth and which North Carolina has become renowned for.

Shortly after Amendment 1 was proposed, Martin Eakes, CEO of Self-Help Credit Union and the Center for Responsible Lending, and a member of Bank of America's advisory council, said, "If you want to figure out a way to push Bank of America to move its headquarters from Charlotte to New York, pass this amendment." Think about that for a second. Bank of America leaving Charlotte. That's literally thousands of jobs. What about other large companies that employ thousands in North Carolina? Imagine companies like Lowes following Bank of America out of the state. Imagine the loss of tax revenue, the loss of disposable income that wouldn't flow from those lost employees into local businesses in Charlotte, in The Triangle and all points in between. Imagine the impact on our state's beaches and mountain retreats when lost residents, who would need to move elsewhere, stopped going on weekend getaways.

The economic impact of passing Amendment 1 could be incredibly severe. And for what? Same-sex unions are not legal in North Carolina right now. This bill is redundant and discriminatory.

Look, I'm not telling N&O readers how they should feel about gay marriage. As I've briefly outlined above in response to Long's assertions, same-sex marriage and where it fits in our culture and society is a complex issue that cannot be boiled down to absolutes. Decisions regarding personal definitions of marriage should be made by individuals, their families, and their God (if they are so inclined to be faithful). Over-regulation by the state government is a problem with many issues – especially when the government begins trying to regulate social standards.

If North Carolina voters vote "yes" on Amendment 1, they will be confirming two things. First, that they want the state government to regulate the lives of private citizens. Second, that they want to discriminate against fellow North Carolinians based on sexual orientation. Both of these will come at the risk of severely damaging our already weakened economy. Amendment 1 is a red herring aimed at distracting voters from the real issues that face our state in 2012. Contrary to what Long asserts, clear-thinking North Carolinians should not blindly vote "yes" on Amendment 1. Clear-thinking North Carolinians should consider what this amendment means for the people of North Carolina, our future economy and our national perception. Clear-thinking North Carolinians should vote "No" on Amendment 1.

Jeffrey Kovacs
Durham

----------------------------

One hardly knows where to begin with John Long's rant favoring passage of the so-called "marriage amenment" given that it is merely a recitation of errors, bigotry and personal opinion.

The definition of marriage has changed multiple times through the centuries. One only has to go back to the OT to find multiple examples of polygamy and the use of slaves as sexual surrogates within marriage. And while we are checking our King James Bibles, one might also find that there are also multiple injunctions forbidding divorce, all overlooked by the amendment proponents.

Apparently a few thousand people of the same gender marrying is a far greater threat to traditional marriage despite the already the shockingly high divorce rate in Southern states. Massachusetts, on the other hand, the first state to allow same same-gender marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The other Northeastern states permitting gays to marry also have low divorce rates.

One also has to raise an eyebrow at Long's assertion that elderly people marrying are considering the possibility of adoption. Childbearing is only one reason out of many for marriage. Love, companionship and economics rank pretty high in the reckoning as well.

I married my husband in 2006. I can't help but wonder how I (a man) have weakened or destroyed anyone else's marriage. The truth is, I haven't, but the truth does not matter to the people pushing this monumentally ignorant addition to North Carolina's constitution.

Gerald Daley
Raleigh

----------------

Supporters of the marriage amendment gloss over the fact that it would also prohibit domestic partnerships and civil unions. The first line of the amendment says “Marriage between one man and one woman is the ONLY domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.” That “only” says it all, doesn’t it?

Some Carolinians don’t support marriage for same-sex couples. I get that. But it takes a particularly narrow-minded individual to say that unmarried couples have no legal right to become partners. The U.S. Government Accounting Office lists 1,118 federal benefits, rights and privileges where marital status is a factor. To those who support this amendment: What gives you the right to deny those benefits, rights and privileges to people because you don’t like their lifestyle? Who died and left you boss?

Steve Bocckino
Durham

------------------------

To the victors

In responding to March 23 Point of View “The case for the marriage amendment,” unless this writer “recently arrived on a spaceship” or has never read the entire Bible, he would know the definition of marriage between “one man, one woman and their children” (the nuclear family) has been in vogue only since the 1950s.

Before that, people lived in extended families near or with grandparents, and other relatives. For most of history, the majorities of people were not married because they were slaves or didn’t own land. Before that, men had as many wives and slaves as they could afford, because most men of prime reproductive age were fighting or killed in wars.

Just like now, rich, older men would send young men into battle to secure the loot of other tribes or countries such as oil, gold or other precious commodities. In the past, winners brought the young women and children home as slaves. Then as now, the rich older guys got to enjoy the victory spoils while the young men were sent to another round of exhausting battle.

Let’s stop the madness! It’s more productive letting people choose their marriage partners than sending more young people into wars of choice

Connie Domino
Raleigh

----------------------------

A business beacon

Regarding the March 21 letter, “In amendment’s favor”: The writer asks, “Every other Southern state has a similar amendment, why haven’t they been damaged economically?” Just because we can’t see an effect yet, doesn’t mean there won’t be an effect. The effect would be gradual and too small to notice at first.

Businesses care about getting the best employees they can find, whether straight or gay. Two facts are verifiably true: More and more businesses are offering partner benefits, and a state that constitutionally refuses to recognize any civil union other than heterosexual marriage looks less attractive to these businesses than a state without this restriction.

Furthermore, if the amendment is bad for business, there will be a lag time between when we realize it and when we finally get it fixed, during which time North Carolina will be losing jobs to other states.

The writer thinks we should join all the other Southern states in adopting a marriage amendment. What distinction does that give us, business-wise? If we reject the amendment, then any businesses that value their partner benefits, North Carolina will be like a shining beacon, the only Southern state without a marriage amendment.

David Higgins
Raleigh

-------------------

Marriage’s high state

Marriage is more than just sex, and sex is for more than just procreation. It is best when children are raised in happy and supportive households, no matter the genders of the parents.

Freda Kerr
Raleigh

-------------------

Leave it be

----------------------

Supporting love

The March 23 Point of View by John Long was so full of misinformation and falsehoods that it would have been more accurate if The News & Observer had published the exact opposite of his assertions.

For example, he claims that the definition of marriage has always included children – a claim wholly without proof. No law in North Carolina has ever required children, and childless couples have never been discriminated against. The traditional purpose of marriage has been to encourage love and respect between two people not to test their ability to procreate.

Then the author alleges that children in gay marriages don’t do as well as children in straight marriages or even as well as children of single parents. In brief, this allegation is flat-out wrong. To quote the American Psychiatric Association: “Children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.”

Study after study has found having two parents is important, but gay and straight couples do just as well. What the state should support is loving, committed relationships of all types not just those that fit an outdated model.
Benjamin Stormo
Durham

--------------------------

Amendment support entangled in contradictions

John Long’s March 23 Point of View essay in support of the Marriage Amendment is so badly argued and self-contradictory that it cries out for a response. Long's primary objection to gay marriage is that it seeks to redefine "a term that is inherently tied to reproduction." He argues that "the very definition of marriage has always been “‘one man, one woman, and their children,' with emphasis on the children." I do not know whose "definition" of marriage Long quotes, but may we not assume that, if marriage is inherently tied to reproduction and if the very definition of marriage emphasizes children, then at least some of the more objective definitions of marriage would include an emphasis on reproduction and children, right?

Wrong. This from Webster's New World Dictionary: "the state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husband and wife." And this, from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary: "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." These definitions clearly indicate a union between one man and one woman (of which, more below), but no mention of, much less emphasis upon, children or biological reproduction. I checked a couple of additional dictionaries as well as some online sources, and they were all the similar to the ones I have quoted.

Even as Long attempts to cast his own strongly held beliefs as universally agreed upon cultural truth, he offers a breath-taking extension of his own definition of marriage. What about married heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children? According to Long, they "are nevertheless included in this institution because of the possibility of adoption or helping to raise the children of others." I characterize this extension as "breathtaking," because Long will go on to oppose gay marriage because gay couples "are unable to create mutual offspring."

If Long is willing to include infertile heterosexual couples in his definition of marriage because of the possibility of adoption or raising the children of others, then why does that same logic not apply to gay couples? Theoretically, if not always legally, these couples could adopt, right? They are capable of raising the children of others, yes? So why does one set of couples qualify for an exception to his rule about biological reproduction and not the other? I suggest that Long's own argument contradicts itself and is fallacious.

Long goes on to argue that, since "the reason for marriage has always been children," cultures should condone the combination of parents that provides "the right foundation" for raising children. The problem with raising children in the context of same-sex marriage, according to Long, is that "all of the weaknesses of a single gender are multiplied." What Long means by this, I think, is that each gender carries its own inherent weaknesses, and if, for example, two men are raising a child together, the weaknesses of the male gender are doubled, and thus "over-emphasized" to the detriment of the children in the household.

The assumption that all males and all females are all weak in precisely the same ways because of gender is patently absurd. Yes, as a fallible human being, I have my weaknesses; as a fallible human being, Long has his. But we are not "weak" in the same ways just because we are both males. This reductive, simplistic, stereotyping argumentation characterizes Long's entire essay. He stereotypes men, women, gay men and gay women, ignoring the complexities of human nature and human relationships. He claims that his point of view is supported by "thousands of years of established definition of marriage," apparently unaware that his own sweeping statement must take into account Biblical depictions of polygamy, among many other cultural and historic variations of what it means to be married.

The above quoted definitions of marriage notwithstanding, the Concise Oxford offers as an alternative definition "any close or intimate union," thus indicating a potentially broader understanding of the term on the part of this institution invested with far more authority to define marriage than is given to Long.

John Long predicts that "clear-thinking North Carolinians" will vote to support the marriage amendment. His essay amply demonstrates that he himself does not fall into this category. Clear-thinking North Carolinians will recognize prejudiced thinking when they see it, disguised though it may be underneath a thin veneer of faulty argumentation.

Dr. Dave Worster
Chapel Hill

AT&T: Anointed To Testify, its NC president says

bwheeler — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:11:24 -0400

Cynthia Marshall, AT&T NC president, likes the phrase “at-risk children.” Children are definitely at risk, she says – at risk of greatness.

Marshall, the keynote speaker Wednesday at a fundraising breakfast for the Loaves and Fishes Ministry in Raleigh, had to follow speeches by a couple of high school seniors on the cusp of greatness: graduation from the tutoring and mentoring ministry and from high school.

At age 7, Joy Pulley, now a senior at Southeast Raleigh High, received a mentor – a mentor she has kept these 11 years, a mentor she calls family. When Pulley was expelled from middle school, “Loaves and Fishes got involved and did everything to help me work it out,” she says.

When she returned to school, her attitude and grades were better “and I even got a math award,” she said to great applause.

She also participated in the tutoring program, saying it’s “not just a place you make them go to do homework but a place where you can come in after having the worst day ever and know someone will be there to listen to your problems,” she said, pausing several seconds to collect herself.

“It’s a place where no matter what you’re doing,” Pulley said, stopping again to swallow tears as the audience sat in complete silence. “That whatever you’re going through at home, everything seems to be better. You know someone will be there to shake your hand, and you know everything will be better.”

Marshall, a recent cancer survivor, certainly believes things are good. When she speaks, she’s looking for some witnesses, some amens, a few people to yell out “tell it!”

AT&T, for the woman who grew up in a Pentecostal church, now stands for “Anointed To Testify.”

She exudes exuberance and good humor, telling audience members that they should NOT turn off the cell phones! “That’s how I earn my money,” she said. “The sound of a ringing phone does something for me. That’s how my baby’s going to college!”

A Birmingham native who grew up in California, she likes to say that it took her awhile to realize that when her mother said, “Bless your heart,” it wasn’t necessarily a blessing.

The fourth child of six, she grew up in public housing and saw her father shoot a man in the head in self-defense – in defense of her, in fact, after she refused to stay hidden with the rest of her family in her apartment and went to the door to see about the commotion.

When so many around her refused to go to school because of the dangerous streets that had to be traversed, Marshall insisted. When she was in the seventh grade, a uniformed police officer escorted her to school.

During Marshall’s junior year in high school, her father left the family – and took everything but one mattress. First, he took Marshall and her younger sister aside and predicted they’d be pregnant and on the street as hookers before too long.

The love and faith of their mother lifted them up. “It’s not where you live, but how you live,” she said.

Her mother, she said, put two books in her hand: a math book and a Bible.

“At 15, I saw a Cynthia different from what my father saw,” she said.

But she needed a lot of help to get where she was going and was blessed to have people – people like those who participate in the Loaves and Fishes Ministry – step up. Ultimately, she graduated at the top of her school district, earning a scholarship to whatever California state school she chose.

Off to UC-Berkeley she went, highly focused on her studies – so focused that she refused to be distracted by the young man who loved her. She told him she’d call him in four years.

“Four years later, I called that boy, and he said he was engaged,” she said. “By the end of the next month, I will have been married to that boy 29 years.”

Marshall reminded folks that we make a living by what we get and make a life by what we give – but that sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
She’s lost a job, she’s lost a daughter, she’s had cancer – and her husband has suffered a brain injury, though he’s back to about 90 percent.

“You accept diversity and make a vow to never give up,” she said.

After her daughter died, Marshall embraced a passion for children.

She asked those at the breakfast to imagine a room in a run-down, abandoned hotel. Inside were a 9-month-old boy, lying on a dirty bathroom floor, and his 9-year-old brother. Their mother had been taken away by police, who didn’t know the boys were inside. Two months later, the 9-year-old was still struggling to take care of the baby when the two were discovered.

Marshall adopted the younger of the two when the child was 5 years old. He’s 19 now.

Next, we imagined a 1-day-old girl, weighing less than 2 pounds. The baby’s mother walked out of the hospital after the birth and never returned. The nurses named the child Smallisha – small because of her size, -isha because she was black.
Marshall’s son saw a news story about the girl and told his mother that they needed to give her a home – like Marshall and her husband had given him one.

That daughter is now 17.

Marshall since has adopted another child in North Carolina, too.

The Loaves and Fishes Ministry takes its mission from the parable of feeding the 5,000 found in Matthew 14. Marshall reminded us that there are thousands of children in our community who are hungry, not just physically. They hunger emotionally and spiritually, too.

Check out the Loaves and Fishes Ministry here. The agency needs to raise $30,000 by May 15 to receive a matching grant.

Fonzi, Fred and Field: Peder Zane on reverse mortgages

bwheeler — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:39:01 -0500

Interesting piece today in The New York Times by former N&O book editor Peder Zane about aging actors "embracing new roles pitching products to aging baby boomers. They made their mark personifying youthful vigor in blockbuster hits; now they are starring in TV and YouTube infomercials promising to help seniors overcome the debilitating challenges of old age.

"Instead of whispering sweet nothings into the ears of lovely co-stars, they are urging seniors to “call now” for free DVDs about hearing aids, reverse mortgages, gold coins and medicines for bone loss and joint pain."

Read it here.